God please continue to protect me and my two children. Father keep me encouraged because being a single mother with autistic children is overwhelming and challenging especially now because I’m homeschooling them so my hours to work are limited. I’m desperately trying to provide for them. Lord give me strength As I continue to struggle to buy groceries and as I struggle to pay rent. I know you are with me Heavenly Father. You are the God of possible. Please change my situation.
Yeah, I don't know what the deal is. This person's been on numerous channels for years. At least 3 or 4 years with exact same message. By now some of those kids must be out of school seriously. I'm not exaggerating. I don't know what I don't know if they're looking for money. I don't know if they're just confused. I don't know what it is. I used to think it was real but now I don't.@@Bomtombadi1
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Try praying to God not the UA-cam comment section
@Ray-vb5mg I second this. If you want us to pray for you, you can ask ma’am. If you’re here to pray aloud so that all may hear, I’m not sure this is the place for that, if any place.
@Bomtombadi1 I’m afraid that’s exactly what it’s for. I’m surprised there’s no CashApp or PayPal here either. I am a follower of Christ, and even I know that He doesn’t call us to sit back lazily and wait for things to happen. Jesus calls us to take action, taking up our cross daily-not posting “woe is me” videos for donations.
I hate it too, but I understand it. Reading the tiresomely idiotic comments of Darwinists who clearly didn't understand the argument and resort to their typical ad hominem insults gets old very fast. I can't believe I used to be one of those people.
@@jockyoung4491 I will repeat this, and hopefully you will learn something if you have an open mind: "I will lay it on the line-there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. (Colin Patterson FRS, British palaeontologist, Natural History Museum) "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist) 1864: Darwin‘s book on evolution. 2024: Evidence for evolution is still not found, almost two centuries.
The reason why most creationist (and flat earther channels) do this is to maintain the echo chamber more easily. It does hurt the appearance of credibility slightly but most flat earthers and creationists still chose to control their herd's minds further.
Calvin actually came the closest I've seen to actually defining it here. He said it was roughly at the family level. I'd like to know on what basis that was decided though. Since no kinds seem to be named in the bible
@@mattbrook-lee7732 Leviticus 11:13 where it clearly describes birds like black kites, herons, ravens as "kinds". If you're goign to describe ravens as being multiple kinds, which is exactly what it does, it is evidend: when the bible says "kind" it is what we would call "species". But believers in the Noah nonense want us to believe that "kind" would sit far above species level, perhaps even to the point where all birds would simpyl be "bird kind".
And when the talking head didn't talk to you but to some imaginary person behind your left shoulder: breaks any intimacy with the viewer and just looks kooky.
Apparently everything is allowed to evolve... except Linnaeus' definitions. Throwing him out because he changed his definition of species is like throwing out all of Einstein because his view of the steady-state universe model changed.
There is very little of Linnaeus left in modern phylogenetics. We don't "throw out" a person, but science marches on. Science is not based on any person.
@@jockyoung4491 Right, just like Darwin's idea's have been updated, and many are even outdated as well. But that is what happens when you are able to analyze new evidence. Funny how AIG makes this out to be a bad thing.
@@nathancook2852 I think the video’s segment regarding Linnaeus was intended to address those who point to Linnaeus’s expanding ‘species’ to account for more variability within species as evidence that Judeo-Christian forefathers ‘moved the goal posts’ to try and ‘force’ alignment between Biblical teaching and new scientific observations
@jockyoung4491 That's a bit of a strawman as no one claimed that science is based on one person. The claim, and it is a correct one, is that the person who created and defined the term "species" also defined the term "kind". Both definitions changed based on observation.
@user-bg7fr1dz8c The term species did not exist before the late 1700s, and neither the Bible nor the "forefathers" defined what a "kind" was. Therefore, there could be neither 'alignment' nor lack of alignment thereof.
Because there’s literally more demonstrable evidence for evolution than there is for you as a human being. More PhD candidates have produced more information than you have produced or has been produced about you in your entire life. The fact that you deny it in favor of magic is personal incredulity.
You do know it's demonstrable and is the strongest scientific theory out there with medical leaps in curing previously genetic disorders and fatal hereditary problems ... deny evolution then refuse done cancer treatments because you don't believe the science behind it if you want, see where prayer alone gets you 🙏 😂
Odd, I thought YEC were the biggest proponents of rapid evolution, looking at evolution from the time of Noah until today, which mainstream science thinks is way too fast in theory to have been possible.
"I thought YEC were the biggest proponents of rapid evolution," - There was no evolution, only speciation just as Calvin explained. Speciation generates subspecies through gene loss, not through new genes. There are no new genes running around to be picked and used for evolution i.e. to produce the process of a taxonomic species transforming to a new taxonomic genus, family, order ... i.e. to evolution. No such process has ever been scientifically proven. Natural selection COULD generate evolution by speciation if it COULD deliver the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population. Natural selection (in fact natural elimination!) however delivers nothing. It just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. This is adaptation through gene loss as lost genes give room for the genes that are more useful in the new environment. This is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the specialized population suffers and goes extinct. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. Repeat: Specialization by devolution, not evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 No you ignoramus. Rapid speciation is what YECs would support not rapid evolution . There is a difference. You simply dont understand whats being said .
So i looked up the articles at the start that say "rapid evolution". The first one about Sulawesi Babblers is about a 15% size increase in males over females on an island. within the timespan of 30.000 years since they split from the Babblers on the mainland. Rapid by evolutionary standards does not mean rapid by human standards. The second is about severe natural selection on a bird species because an invasive new type of larger snail that took over the eco system and all birds with smaller beaks had a hard time eating them. Those with larger beaks (that were already around) flourished and within a decade or so only the birds with the large beaks were still around and that gene that caused the large beaks was present in most birds when it wasn't before. This is natural selection at work. None of the comments that pop up actually mention rapid evolution or anything of the kind.
I do have a question about the birds with larger beaks surviving, which I understand and makes sense in the scenario you mentioned, but what confuses me is this: Lets say you have the same ecosystem with the snail species and all the birds had smaller beaks originally, wouldn't this lead to the all the birds dying out before any of them could have developed beaks strong enough to break through the shells? There is potential for the smaller birds using rocks to smash the snails onto, but then why didn't the smaller birds do this in this situation? This is where I have an issue with evolution over a long period of time, in a isolated ecosystem where a food source is not accessible due to a inability of the prey, surely the prey would die out before being able to adapt to the environment?
@@pathblazerstudios indeed when the environment changes too quickly and evolution can't keep up species do die out. In fact there have been 5 mass extinctions throughout earth's history where exactly that has happened on a huge scale
@@mattbrook-lee7732 but then if everything died out, wouldn't it automatically suggest a reset on everything and starting all over again. If all the birds die out, then whatever controls the size of the beak would reset to 0 again as there is no knowledge remaining that the birds needed a bigger beak, as evolution doesn't keep a backup file somewhere of what it had previously accomplished just in case something goes wrong. which still makes me wonder, either the smaller birds found a way to sustain themselves over a period of time and develop a larger beak, or the larger beak has always been around.
Absolutely none of that is true. But you knew that. There is nothing illogical or impossible about evolution. If you think there is, then you don't understend it. Evolution can occur at many different rates, but even at its fastest no individual ever gives borth to a different species. That WOULD be illogical
@@mattbrook-lee7732 yes, they have. In fact, the hopeful monster hypothesis was developed to address the fossil record having a stark lack of transitionary fossils.
Just a note on the introduction... I checked the comments that popped up on screen, and *_none_* of them quote "rapid evolution" as "undeniable proof of the story of evolution." As I am sure some commenters have used examples of rapid evolution as evidence of the modern scientific theory of evolution, the question becomes why Mr. Smith's production team didn't chose any of those comments to pop up. Are they just lazy? Or are they trying to mislead their audience?
(To original poster) Isn't there like hundreds of thousands of comments on each video? You'd need some sort of crawler to reliably find what you're looking for I think @@jockyoung4491 Teaching and believing in the Second Law of Thermodynamics (decay) is "trying to mislead"? Wow, and here I thought the SLoTD was an actual observable phenomenon in nature lol
@Packhorse-bh8qn You said: _" What on earth are you babbling about?????"_ Please watch the video. At 5 seconds into the video, a number of comments pop up *_in the video,_* but *_none_* of them quote "rapid evolution" as "undeniable proof of the story of evolution" as Mr. Smith claimed. So, what do you think; are the peeps at AiG Canada too lazy to copy a few appropriate quotes, or are they trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or maybe there is some other reason? Take your time...
@Packhorse-bh8qn Yeah, I think the misunderstanding stems from hansdemos skimming the comments of _this_ video, because he thought Calvin Smith was talking about this particular video. I tried to clear that up with my reply but I don't see my reply showing up
@Packhorse-bh8qn You said: _"Oh, please. That's all you have? That's what's known as, "grasping at straws"."_ I gather you have not bothered to watch the first 15 seconds of the video. Are you too lazy, or are you trying to gaslight people?
Mr Smith: Evolutionists claim "rapid evolution", while showing an study that shows a type for bird got 15% bigger in the last 30.000 years. Also Mr Smith: The cat kind that was on the ark changed into all these amazingly diverse cat-like animals in 5000 years. This is just stupid.
@@1MDA That is not a widely accepted scientific term. But evolutionary rates are relative. Even at its fastest, no individual ever gives birth to a different species, and nobody has ever claimed it could.
That was my first thought. If there isnt rapid evolution how did 1000 “kinds” microevolve to million+ species in a few 1000 years? Im not saying anything about rapid evolution, just showing internal inconsistency in the logic.
And what?Did it show the particle to human evolution?It is called speciation. The parent population split off to offsprings that share the traits of the parent population. Is that a surprise?
Well if rapid evolution is not real then I guess all the "kinds" that were on the ark could not have evolved into their current diversity, so Noah HAD to have taken all the current day animals onto his ark...which would have basically been unable to fit them all.
"Well if rapid evolution is not real then " - In fact NO evolution is real. Speciation instead is real (as Calvin stated) and it can be extremely fast. Speciation of course does not generate new species, only subspecies. Dogs are subspecies from wolf and wolf may be subspecies from an older member of Canis Family. The forefather of Canis Family left the Ark 4500 years ago.
@@burnttoast2790 There is no barrier between "macro" and "micro" evolution and creationists have never been able to demonstrate that there is. The only things they can and always do say about it is "we have never seen it before" and then act incredulous about it.
I like that Abbott and Costello's usage and misunderstanding of common words/phrases are being used by a guy whose side routinely trots out the "Evolution is just a theory" canard.
@@chocolatestraw3971 According to Wikipedia, a scientific theory is AN explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Seems you have mixed up theory and law. Theories open up the possibility of being proven wrong, whereas laws are universal observed constants in our world. We have a THEORY of evolution, not a LAW of evolution. And it will always stay a theory and will never be a law, because we never will find those missing links.
The gappy example is gold ,cause now we see that it can obviously go on for longer with more time ,and end up with even new features all together cause see what just 4 years can do
How so? All he did in this video is clarify the Creationist viewpoint, clairify the evolutionary view, and explained why he believes evolution to not be possible. He did this using research from Evolutionary studies and basic logic.
@@TacoBel No, he quote mines and misleads, and often just lies, and he clarified nothing. He also didn't study anything, because if he had he would realize his mistakes. His logic is severely lacking. All of biology and medical sciences are based on evolution occurring, and yet he tries to claim evolution is a myth. That is ignorance, or willful lying, but no where in that is there logic.
The ignorance and stupidity exhibited by this site never ceases to amuse. 🙂 This latest brain fart about "rapid speciation" is like watching runoff from a heavy rainstorm rapidly erode a soft dirt hillside, then claiming that proves *all erosion everywhere* (like the wearing smooth of the Appalachian Mountains) must have happened rapidly too. 🤪
@@Lightbearer616 Lying its not a crime, its not agression, its free speech. Id side with flat earthers over people like you who think have a right to tell others what to think and do, and puting them in jail for having diferent opinions.
The fossil record will display what looks like rapid evolution, but what really happens is a new population moving into an area across what was a barrier. The species shows up in the record with no precursors there, but the precursor is elsewhere, unknown to you. The new species moves in where there are no natural predators, and experiences rapid growth.
Rapid depends on the context too. I looked up the articles about rapid evolution in this video. They are still talking about 30.000 year timespans. Which is rapid for an evolutionary context. But nothing like what these creationists try to accuse scientists off.
AIG: No such thing as evolution Also AIG: Nioah's Ark only needed a single pair of "feline kind", all the types of felines we see today developed from them
Diversity within a kind of animal is already present in the genetic material of the animal. That's not macro evolution. He literally explained it in the video but you chose to ignore it. Interesting.
Bingo!! But they will say: "All of today's felinae are already created in the "kind" on Noah's ark". Even the South and North American types, which could have never had contact with Old World types since Noah.
They also needed beavers, termites, porcupines and woodpeckers, not to mention all the other hundreds of wood eating animals and insects to live on the ark for nearly a year. I still haven't figured out how the koala's got there knowing they sleep nearly 22 hrs. a day and only eat eucalyptus leaves, but yet they traveled from Australia to the middle east and back.
Calvin Smith's answer would be: "At that time (about 4,500 years ago) all the continents were still close together, the mountains were not yet so high and the oceans not so deep."
@@Nils-gi5bv The continental drift is less than an inch a year, which would mean in 4,500 years, the continents should all be no more than 375 feet from each other. I guess that's why the call the ocean between the US and the UK "across the pond" lol
Also creationists: all these different animal species around the Earth came from a couple thousand kinds. You guys believe in Ultra Rapid Evolution, but also claim that Rapid Evolution is not a thing? That's hilarious.
@@IslandUsurper no, there’s no lapse in comprehension going on here. Creationists are always confusing terms, making terms up, or straight up redefining them to suit their purpose. Or perhaps you’d care to clarify these terms? I don’t think you will, because you don’t know what you’re talking about, like all science deniers.
@@katamas832 What, then, is "evolution"? And "Ultra Rapid Evolution"? Be specific. I predict your definition for your comment regarding what creationists believe in does not match the one in the video title that evolutionists believe in.
Genuine question for creationists Considering how your apologists never adress evolution, but adress either a version of evolution that's not the scientific one, but a lie they made up, or adress stuff that has nothing to do with evolution in the first place, like the formation of life or even the universe, pretending it's about evolution, Is there any point where you start doubting the honesty of those apologists?
Well mostly I would say that apologists on average have no or little knowledge on evolutionary theory nor any particular branch of science. Most apologists argue from moral and ethical grounds.( With personal experience and "easy" talking points) Thus I listen to scientists for science and philosophical teachers for philosophy. That said, life from non-life and the origin of the universe are both important to a purely naturalistic view of the universe. It is ridiculous to assume that any one person knows enough about a topic as complex as this to perfectly present their points and avoid making false or inaccurate statements about the other sides position, thus I pool what I find reasonable and sound and try to find and clarify inconsistent points. Find my errors and I will attempt to correct them.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Name them and their scientific fields. I bet those "scientists" have nothing to do witn anything like biology, biochemistry, or similar fields, right? 😀And they work for frauds like AiG or "discovery" institute.
If all life existed simultaneously at the time of Noah’s global flood as claimed, why aren’t there remains of all “kinds” of life (even for a short time after the flood) in geology since that time??? Why do we only discover remains of certain “kinds” in certain layers (sedimentary, volcanic, ice, meteroic layers etc), never all “kinds” mixed together even though they supposedly lived in the same places and died in the same flood??? Why is there tree ring and ice layer dating evidence far older than biblical creation??? Why is there no remains of all “kinds” of life (and their foods) from distant islands and continents around where Noah’s ark settled - or anywhere in between there and their sole known origin/current location??? Why do plants, fungi and animals (not qualifying as ark creatures or their foods) exist if all destroyed by god in the flood??? If Noah’s ark only held a single mating “kind” of each animal, doesn’t that suggest rapid evolution to produce the variants of “kinds” we see today (including variants that are not found in earlier geology)??? Same with plants and fungi. How did the different “kinds” of life (and their often immobile foods) from across the world (including from places then unknown) get to the ark, and return to their sole known locations after???… Noting many cannot travel far or fast, cannot swim from or back to their respective islands and continents, require different environments and foods etc etc etc
Dinosaur fossils show that they died with there heads pointing to the sky as if they were trying to stay out of the water, ND they find alot of fossils alongside mountains
@@JesusistheonetrueGod Good heavens. Where did that come from? Why are you looking for excuses to hate people? No biologist would say that, so keep your racism imaginings to yourself. Adaptation is evolution. And everything has been evolving for exactly the same amount of time.
@@nathancook2852 men of Christian face like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday world They looked for natural laws in the universe as they understood. God is the great lawgiver; he made moral laws to keep life from being chaotic and physical laws to keep the universe from being chaotic. as they knew they were created in the image of God, they could find the universe intelligible. The evolutionist has no such prospects; as they do not believe in and intelligent creator, they see the universe as being without cause, without purpose, with no mind behind it, no rationality. Therefore, the evolutionist must acknowledge that is they are product of that universe. Their brain is unplanned, unguided and irrational, and therefore your suspect in anything approaching logic, reason critical thinking. Others of the Christian faith who have added to science and philosophy: Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1 543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1 650) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947) Without all these, science will be set back considerably more than “300 years”.
Its silly how people criticize this man, and yet believe in their own imagination. Namely, evolutionists that believe that "whenever the time is right" Or "After enough time and chance" Umm? So basically a circular argument? Really? I thought science was about finding the specific answers to specufic questions. And not being dogmatic about something broad and unproveable
@@taylorthetunafish5737 Another ad hominem. Can you make an argument without just objecting your bias? I do grasp science. And science doesn't prove the theory of evolution unless you mold logic to fit it that way. Please don't make arguments attempt to gaslight such as: your inability to grasp science isn't an argument against it" First off you failed to prove I have an inability to grasp science. And second of all you failed to prove that it's not a valid argument.
@@Jraethyme I would say that if you claim to "grasp science" yet reject evolutionary biology, then whatever you've grasped probably isn't science. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming!
@@Jraethyme All of biology is based on the fact that evolution occurs. The entire field is based on evolution occurring. Medical and pharmaceutical research is as well. They would break down completely if evolution did not occur. Believe whatever you want about a god, but stop spreading scientific falsehoods and scientific ignorance. It holds the world back.
Evolution is change and change is a big problem for creationists who have a man made book as their guide instead of the real world that surrounds them every day of their lives.
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist) In short: no tree of life, no evolution because there is no evidence.
@@denvan3143 I met Gould. My brother worked in his lab. You have no idea how annoyed he would get when creationsts (he called them munchkins) used his words to mean something different than obviously intended. Gould was right, but that obviously does not mean there is no evidence for evolution. That would be a stupid conclusion.
@@jockyoung4491 I expressed no conclusions, I only quoted the man. If you resent my doing so it is on the basis of your personal bigotry; the root of your resentment is that from the time the statement was made to the present the situation has not changed. In fact, from Darwin’s first presentation of his theory to the present 160 years have passed in which the evidence has not been forthcoming. I am not responsible for your discontent over the situation or the annoyance of Gould. Phylogeny has proven to be a failure in this regard; don’t blame me.
All I know is when I read scientific periodicals or research documents of evolution, the documents are still peppered with words and terms such as "we assume...", "...probably...", "maybe...", "we postulate...", "it is believed that...", "given time..." ...etc... ..This is not to say that science won't figure it out with continued research. . On the other hand, it's difficult to believe that some higher intelligent "God" just commanded everything into existence. . Honestly, I don't think anyone really knows how, when, or why. Time is the hero of everything.
I love your videos, you have such an incredible way of intelligently explain what some of us already believe. I have questioned the idea of evolution right from day 1. I have always thought the scientific explanation for fossils was fishy as well it just didn't seem logical.
Thank you, Calvin, for another presentation that is very informative and enlightening! May GOD continue to bless you in your endevours to keep us aware of the beauty of GOD's Creation!!!
At about 3 minutes, the term "biblical creationists" is conflated with "young earth creationists". John H Walton is a biblical creationist through and through, yet he comes down fairly neutral regarding evolution, while differing vastly on some of the ways biblical terms are meant, when compared to how YEC understand those terms.
"yet he comes down fairly neutral regarding evolution" - I can also accept this kind of evolution: "Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution." (Wikipedia) Anyone can see that, but it's not evolution generating new life forms. It doesn't claim that new genera or new life forms appear from the existing species. Scientists have observed only intraspecific (within species) variation. This variation is called "evolutionary process" by the desperate Darwinists.
@@jounisuninen yes,-ists try to conflate in specific variation with evolution, then attempt to move the goalpost to claim that this is proof of origin of different kinds of life forms, while ignoring the fact, the fossil evidence does not support any such claim.
@@denvan3143 No single fact is proof of evolution by itself. It is the enture body of evidence thta makes it obvious. And the fossil record shows a myriad of intermediate forms.
No, the fossil record does not show a myriad of intermediate forms. You have been shown singular examples like archeopteryx and tiktaalik and told these are in immediate forms. But in Darwin‘s time there were no transitional forms, no small continual forms that progressed from one kind of animal to another; in short, there are no ancestral examples for the two above mentioned specimens nor is there fossil evidence that these are the ancestral forms of any subsequent animals. If you claim otherwise cite the phylogeny for any of them.
@@jockyoung4491 so setting aside what you punitively State as an accumulation of evidence, the comprises proof and addressing the Marie of intermediate forms“ I invite you to cite a phylogeny For any of the lifeforms, you pause it transformed into another life form. You won’t succeed; no such exist. Sans evidence, evolution is not science, it is a belief system and a comfort mechanism. You need not require evidence to believe it because it is a matter of faith and it provides you with comfort because it makes you feel enlightened to say that you believe it. As an agnostic, I abandoned evolution as being bankrupt of evidence. And as an agnostic, I went in search to see if they’re actually is a god is the Bible says. There is.
Please be specific what you mean by the term evolution in this context and provide examples. I have physical traits in common with my parents, but they’re also differences; that does not constitute evolution, it is merely an expression of revenant DNA.
@@jockyoung4491 You are confusing, recumbent DNA in the reproductive process with genetic mutation. 23 chromosomes from your mother and 23 chromosomes from your father, combine to create a new, unique human being; if you have brothers or sisters, you will all have a family resemblance, but each will be different - unless twins are involved, of course. This is not evolution, you do not “evolve” from your parents. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information but it is incorrect. Recon revenant DNA is not rapid evolution, rapid evolution is not Darwin’s descent with modification.
So I have a question for you, so because a type of animal is in one place in the world that proves evolution? Which means you must believe that an equal amount of every single type of animal should be everywhere on earth if you’re a creationist. So I don’t get how your theory even makes any sense. What would animals who thrive in hot environments do in a cold environment? Because you’re saying that creationism means all animals must be equally spaced out on the entire planet. You commenting on a video that you didn’t even watch, tells me that you are arguing not because you have proof that you wish people seeking the truth would watch. Nor do you want to consider any evidence that you don’t have. So you must know everything and everyone else knows nothing new that you don’t already know. Which equals arrogance. I hope you can one day you can understand that no one person on earth knows everything. May my Creator bless you and your family and your children’s children for a thousand generations. May His love bring you peace, protection and happiness.
Specifically what is dishonest? Why do you atheists just cast general insults but never specifically refute anything? So specifically, what did he get wrong and what is your evidence to back up that it is wrong?
@@rl7012 "you atheists just cast general insults and never refute anything"... well well well if there ever was a pot calling the kettle black you just nailed it... congratulations self foot shooter oh great one
@@DuXQaK there weren’t any general insults casted at you and the refutation was the pointing out that you didn’t provide any support for your stance.. maybe you should look up what “pot calling the kettle black “ means. BUT ONLY after giving an answer, what was dishonest about this video?
There is no possible way you could know the answer that question - unless you actually watch the video. Carl Linneus is the father of modern taxonomy. He found the biblical description of “kinds“ was not all inclusive so he said about to supplement it. If you don’t like it, you are free to make up your own tax on me and attempt to publish papers on the subject.
@@1MDA well, you’ll never know if they added to scripture or not unless you actually read the Bible - is that going to happen anytime soon? I have read one and a half books every week for the past 30 years; that’s in excessive 2000 books on every subject aside from the Bible. When you get up to 500 books come back and perhaps we can have a conversation about Scriptures or whatever you would like to discuss.
It all boils down to the basics of what is necessary for the evolution of purely new lifeforms, that is fundamentally new proteins, new moleculer constucts that adds up to new functions(that is purely new information). If this doesn't happen it'll be quite hard to call it evolution. If you're just working off of the normal gene pool then its still basically the same kind of animal.
"If you're just working off of the normal gene pool then its still basically the same kind of animal." For many generations, yes. Eventually it becomes increasingly different. That's inevitable.
@@jockyoung4491 no it's not, for organisms to develop and gain new abilities you need fundamentally new information, just reshuffling the old ones won't do. You need new proteins to build the new structures new fundamental rearrangement of body plans etc. It's really really hard to get or evolve a protein from random trial and error because proteins have a functional integrity that cannot be easily bridged, when you change a protein to a certain degree you loose function and when that happens it's quite impossible to get anything meaningful.
@@ikemiracle4841 We get new genetic information from new random nucleotides and new codon combinations which occur during reproduction with variations. These produce new proteins (or new modified versions of existing proteins) and new features. Science has known that for decades but creationists just can't seem to grasp reality.
@@sciencerules2825 it would be very difficult to convince you but try to understand what it means for something to be literally random. Proteins and other organic structures have an informational requirement in order to work, without the adequate amount of information you can't make anything useful for natural selection to preserve and maintain, proteins are not just made from random codons but ones that are arranged in such a way when read, they give the right structure of the protein or enzyme if you do the simple maths on how long and how probable it is to have these structures through pure trial and error you would be totally weakend. It doesn't just work 😞 I'll ask you this question and I'm hoping for an answer, do you think that most random mutations would lead to a benefit or function or the production of new protein (as isolated and complex as they are)? OR do you think that most mutations are neither beneficial or functional. If you picked the later option then to what degree in terms of probability, please quantify i.e 1/10^x or in any way you find fit. If you picked the first please state it clearly.
@@ikemiracle4841 You obviously have zero understanding of genetics. You're blithering nonsense about "information" and "probabilities" you got for some crackpot creationist website. If your goal was to show everyone how little you know about actual biology you've succeeded admirably.
Er, isn't it _creationists_ who need to worry about "rapid evolution" not being true? They're the ones who believe all animals descended from the original "kinds" on Noah's Ark. If that isn't rapid evolution, what is?
Calvin explains this in the video. You may not agree with him, but his point was that the various types of dogs, cats, etc. arise from reshuffling the genetic code already present in the parents. Just like one pair of human parents can have children that look significantly different from each other, the offspring of animals also experience genetic reshuffling. Mutations exist, and they do cause changes. But generally speaking, mutations are either neutral or bad. And mutations aren't the reason that there are so many different types of dogs. Just like the diversity in human appearance isn't due to mutations. Reshuffling genetics of parents can result in an incredible array of different possibilities.
@strategywizard It's not that I disagree with him: he's _wrong,_ plain and simple. The changes required for different species are impossible without mutations. And no, they're not always neutral or deleterious.
@@strategywizard Yes, children of the same parents can be very different. But they still only contain a random selection of information that the parents have inherited from the grandparents. These can be mixed in many ways, this is called recombination. However, there is no possibility beyond this offer. However, all such different children are children of this pair of parents. They are not new types! There is no biological mechanism as you imagine it.
@@strategywizard _arise from reshuffling the genetic code already present in the parents_ That nonsense was disproven decades ago. We've sequenced the genomes of ancient cats and dogs from specimens going back over 10,000 years. None of those genomes show any sign of containing all the genetic variations seen in extant dogs and cats. This is just one more made-up-on-the-spot lie from the creationist camp.
Both the London Underground mosquitoes and the armored freshwater stickleback among others strongly disagree and are excellent examples of rapid evolution.
You can apply the word “evolution” if you wish as a synonym for change, but the change is not because of additional biological instructions being added to the mosquitoes in the fish, but rather a change induced by environmental that activate portions of the genome, which had been inactive. An example is E. coli, which, when immersed in matrix of citrace which is incapable of metabolizing well after several generations become able to do so because an inactive gene becomes activated to permit dysfunction. The biological instructions were pre-programmed into the genome; it cannot be a process of evolution because evolution can’t anticipate future needs. The Creator did plan for contingencies and variations of environment. This is contingency programming; if you were familiar with computer programming, this will be familiar, otherwise it may be lost on you.
@@denvan3143 Haha. You're describing evolution while desperately trying to circumvent it. Environmental factors can influence gene expression and activate certain dormant traits. This is part of how evolution works. Furthermore, the claim that evolution cannot anticipate ''future needs'' is a misunderstanding of how evolutionary processes work. Evolution does not have foresight rather, it operates through the cumulative effects of random variation and natural selection actng on populations over generations. Traits that provide a reproductive advantage in a particular environment tend to become more common over time, regardless of whether they were "anticipated" by some external agent. Also, your argument depends on religious belief that we cannot corroborate here in this reality and a false computer analogy, no doubt copy+pasted from some creationist website.
@@denvan3143 Biological evolution does not require mutation in the SHORT term, because genetic variation is already present (although that variation obviously came from past mutations). But selection can deplenish that variation fairly quickly, so to evolve very FAR requires new mutation, which fortunately happens all the time.
@@nathancook2852 you’re right; evolutionist first say that evolution takes hundreds of millions of years, then they say that evolution can happen within the span of human existence, but, whoops, not that fast. Pick a lane.
The only reason why you would need a concept like "baramin" is if you do not believe that God could have miraculously fitted all existing species of breathing land animals on the Ark. This is a theological issue, not a scientific one. Mr. Smith's acceptance of the modern "baramin" or "created kind" terminology shows that his ideas have evolved from past dogmas on this topic. His religious forebears used to believe that God had created all individual species as they were, and the word "min" or "kind" did not refer to the "family" level at all, but to the species level. You can easily verify this for yourself by looking at old paintings of the animals that went into the Ark; you will see both lions and tigers, donkeys and horses, foxes and wolves waiting in line.
As science is what is observable and evolution is not observable in the wild, in the laboratory or in the fossil record it is a belief system and not science. Yours is a poor position from which to critique others. Origin of species is not observed, divergence of species is. Darwin observed the ladder, as the breeders of domestic animals exploited this facet of biology to breed new phenotypes. Darwin mistakenly based his idea of evolution on the notion that divergence of species or species ation could lead to different families of animals, as different as cats and dogs. Such as not the case, no such thing has ever been discovered in the fossil record.
@@denvan3143 You said: _" As science is what is observable and evolution is not observable in the wild, in the laboratory or in the fossil record it is a belief system and not science."_ The definition of evolution is "the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." This has been observed numerous times. You may call it "adaptation" or "divergence of species", but it is evolution in accordance with its definition. You said: _"Origin of species is not observed, divergence of species is."_ If you are of the opinion that "divergence of species" is observed, then you admit that evolution is observed in accordance with its definition. If you don't agree that we can draw rational conclusions about the past based on what we observe in the present, you are opposed to all of the natural sciences. You said: _"Darwin observed the ladder, as the breeders of domestic animals exploited this facet of biology to breed new phenotypes."_ I don't know what you mean by "the ladder", but yeah, Darwin observed artificial selection and that informed his ideas about natural selection. I don't see what the problem is. You said: _"Darwin mistakenly based his idea of evolution on the notion that divergence of species or species ation could lead to different families of animals, as different as cats and dogs."_ I am not sure what you mean by "different families of animals". You seem to agree that divergence can lead to different species, so why would you not agree that species could diverge further and further until they had become so different from each other that a new classification should be introduced? That seems illogical to me. You said: _"Such as not the case, no such thing has ever been discovered in the fossil record."_ The fossil record is notoriously patchy, so if you require complete lineages to be found, you will be disappointed. The remarkable thing about the fossil record however is that what we do find invariably fits with the bigger picture. No Pre-Cambrian bunnies yet!
If you believe it to be Clickbait, then , as you have commented here you have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. Your remark expresses your insecurity; if you didn’t care, you wouldn’t comment. Evidently, Fear Of Missing Out is your drug of choice.
@@denvan3143 I love how you all know what others are thinking. I guess your mythical god gave you that ability too. We just call out science deniers. Don't go thinking you all are that special. I call out flat earthers too.
@@nathancook2852 it’s not a matter of mind reading; your attitude is evident and what you write. You come to videos like this because of the fear of missing out, then become angry because you don’t like what you hear. Your anger is evident in what you write and the way you write it, and the basis of that anger is fear.
Technically yes they can. With enough time and chance. But the evolutionists will claim they are being misrepresented when they know the logic is silly
@marcj3682 What does the symbiotic relationship of the living kind', mean? This isn't a scientific term, so you'll need to clarify so I can answer you.
@5:15: no, it doesn't 'beg the question' Begging the question is arguing in a circle, assuming the truth of what you seek to prove. I think he means 'raises the question'. "operational science"? Surely you mean empirical science? No one uses the term 'operational' for science. If you used regular English you might have more credibility.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. The title is a red herring. And I hate to break it to ya, Calvin, but evolution is supported by over a century and a half of empirical evidence. No version of any religion on earth can say that. At least, not honestly... You really are blatant in your Commandment breaking.
yeah--the us against them mentality in the very title is rather detrimental to their position. i've never seen a biology book that goes out of its way to refute religion
@@jockyoung4491 his style is polemic, which is inherently neither good nor bad, but simply a mechanism to promote dialogue. If you perceive it as offensive, it may be because you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.
Dogs came from wolves through man's intervention. Other dog breeds came about from man's intervention. We end up with little wolves in our homes, well some bigger than others. We love our little wolves in our homes. Why do we call them dogs? They are still just wolves. Coyoteys are in there, too. It's just a hypothetical question or maybe phylosophical.
The article Calvin showed was called "Wolf to woof" That's a subtle pun, wolves don't bark, most dogs (except some hounds) do. Domestic dogs and wolves are separate species now,
@@jockyoung4491 as is explained in the video, rapid evolution is subdivision within a text Aime Family; dogs and wolves are in the canine family and different species, but neither developed from a simpler life form; that would require additional biological instructions in the DNA. Evolutionist have no answer to the question of the biological instructions in DNA other than to say “it just happened“ or “it’s just chemistry“, which is silliness that borders on believing in magic.
@@nathancook2852 not merely what it is called but the definition. Evolution as defined as one kind of living organism, transforming overtime into another kind of organism is not observed in nature, it is not observed in the fossil record, and it is not demonstrated in laboratory experiments. it is 1864 book on evolution. Charles Darwin put forward this theory that animals could transform over time into completely different kinds of animals, but in the 160 years since the evidence to support that theory has never been found. As to scientist, not being wrong: scientist are wrong all the time, they gonna do huge heated debates and nearly into hockey fights and agreements over their pet theories. scientists are just guys working for a paycheck, they are not selfless priests.
17:16 i dont understand why you cant imagine that you repeat this proccess enough times, you get something new? repeat it over and over and over again and you'll get widly different forms. and btw, all genetic information is new information. any change, gives new information, even if that information gets rid of traits.
Where do the biological instructions in DNA originate? If you tell me, your shoes got scuffed up, that indicates a change in issues, but it does not explain how your shoes came into existence. You could sit at a computer at the prompt screen and press keys at random; that is information of a sword. I could sit at the same screen, prompt, and write instructions that would execute a program. That is a set of instructions as opposed to random characters on the screen. For lizard to become a bird where require a massive new set of instructions that direct the structure, function and metabolism of the wings, feathers and the unique lung structure of a bird. That’s not the result of random genetic mutation.
@denvan3143 thats abiogenesis, which is not related to darwin evolution but also, this idea that changing DNA randomly doesnt give new information is just wrong. any change is new information. DNA is not code nor a language, it is its own thing. you have strings of codans that come in 3 pairs, and all pairs can make something, even if its nonsense. you take ATA and take it to ATC or whatever, it becomes a new protein. new proteins can have new shapes, make new functions, etc. for example, fur and feathers are the same kind of protein shaped differently. for a lizard to become a bird, it can take either massive changes really fast (no biologist claims this) or it was slow changes over time. therapods began to grow plumage to stay warm, then glide from tree to tree, then fly on their own. each step moves slower to be better, the lungs slowly change, the bones slowly get more hollow, etc. the point between a lizard (therapode specifically) becoming a bird can't be scientifically pinpointed. i assume you believe in micro evolution as most creationists do, so im wondering wjy that just cant keep going into macro
@@denvan3143”lizard changing into a bird,” is exactly why you people don’t get laughed at. You’re right. I hate creationists. Plain and simple. They are some of the worst, most intellectually bankrupt people on this plant. No different from the Muslim creationists who use the exact same arguments to prove Allah is real. There’s a reason you people are called the Christian taliban.
@@Bomtombadi1 well, at least you admit you’re a bigot; that’s refreshing honesty from an evolutionist. But men are the Christian faith like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday were fundamental to modern science; from their knowledge of the Bible, they knew that God is the great lawgiver, who made moral laws so life would not be chaotic and physical laws so the universe would not be chaotic. That is why we call them “laws of nature“” laws of science”. These men understood from the Bible that they are made in the image of their creator, and for that reason can find the universe intelligible. Evolutionist do not believe in the creator and believe somehow there is order in the universe, although it is a result of mindless, unguided, and irrational process. Evolutionist, who have to believe that their brain is a product of that blind, unguided, irrational process, still believe that somehow they will find the universe intelligible. It is one of the myriad contradictions evolutionists struggle with. Others of the Christian faith who have added to science and philosophy: Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1 543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1 650) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947)
“There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority].” Galatians 3:28 you hate people, Christianity teaches us to love people. “Early Christians liberate slaves at their own expense. In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.” In the 1800s 90% of slaves sold by black slave kings went to the Muslim market; your problem is with them. Christians are taught to love, who taught you to hate?
Some of those who comment here both subscribe and (militantly) jump to be first ones appearing to this channel's videos attacking the narrator on almost every video. I've never seen a more ridiculous bunch of keyboard warriors that have nothing better to do in life than hate those who believe in the God of the bible. To those I'm speaking of, quit the hating and the denial that you are hating and get a life.
I've seen no one here show any hatred to those who believe in God. The problem is with people like Calvin who bare-faced lie about scientific knowledge to push their beliefs. That's quite a bit different, don't you agree?
@@sciencerules2825 What exactly do you mean by Calvin cherry picking his info? First, prove it. Next, if you can't then don't make false claims that stem from hate towards the guy.
@@NoiTuLovE64 If you haven't see Calvin lying about and misrepresenting evolutionary science in virtually every video he posts you are either scientifically illiterate or haven't been watching, or both.
So you don't suppose that Calvin's blatant atheist-baiting titles have anything to do with the speed at which he gets rebuttals from atheists? He knows very well what he's doing, and you should recognise it too.
Funny. Creationists need ultra-rapid evolution for explaining the Noah´s arch story but deny cases of rapid evolution reported in scientific papers. Calvin Smith again fails to get even one thing right.
"Creationists need ultra-rapid evolution for explaining the Noah´s arch story ..." - Not true however. You are addled by the evolution theory. Listen carefully what Calvin tells. Calvin talks of speciation. Speciation has nothing to do with the fallacious "evolution". Speciation is a quick process. Evolutionists just can't distinguish speciation from evolution. Speciation is reality, evolution is a fairy tale for ignorant evolutionists. Speciation generates subspecies through gene loss, not through new genes. Less fit individuals get culled from population and they take their genes with them. When part of genes are lost from population, other genes become dominant and superficial changes happen. There are no new genes running around to be picked and used for evolution i.e. to produce the process of a taxonomic species transforming to a new taxonomic genus, family, order ... i.e. to evolution. No such evolution process has ever been scientifically proven! Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population. Natural selection (in fact natural elimination!) however delivers nothing, it just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners because the less fit are dead or become too rare. This means that on the population level every individual's genome gets specialized i.e. impoverished. This is adaptation. It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the specialized population suffers and goes extinct. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly.
@@jounisuninen _Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population_ Oh, you mean like this paper in _Science_ documents? *Real-time evolution of new genes by innovation, amplification, and divergence*
@@samburns3329 you believe in the origination of new biological instructions in living organisms by a natural, blind mechanism? Great: I’m selling shears in my new perpetual motion machine; you don’t want to miss out. 😄 PS _Science_ used to be a reputable magazine, it went the way of woke.
@@statutesofthelord Yes it has, if you think that then you clearly do not understand what evolution is, we have evidence annually of flu, covid, cold evolving constantly hence our immune systems do not recognise them, we have been able to demonstrate in a lab how to make a single celled organism spontaneously evolve into a multi celled organism, by definition evidence of evolution, sorry but this ideology the church pushes is misinformation, no I cant put a cow in a lab and turn it into a sheep, evolution never claimed that and you have to ignore time itself to believe evolution does not exist. It is the strongest theory ever in science, it is backed up by several non related fields of science, it is observable, demonstrable and provable now because we can unravel the genetic code of any DNA sample, we can literally see the evidence in chemical bonds and how they relate to the evolutional tree and its branches. Just sitting there claiming i'm wrong shows you ignorance, we have been manipulating evolution for thousands of yrs in fruit and cattle etc we can show it in real time with fruit flies by triggering evolutionary cursors, but you won't know any of this because you are denying it without actually understanding the subject due to your ideology, that is sad and exposes your indoctrination.
4:32 I was wondering for a while, apparently there's this "corruption" argument so after 1500 years of selective pressures at least the probability wouldn't be high that there's a pair of animals having all the alleles (how big would the genome even need to be?) to bring forth all that is today Regarding your miscommunication point: maybe it would be good to introduce your video with what evolution is and what you mean when you say it (yeah, it's clear you mean large changes but some, no many people I'd say don't know that your last example where the genes already existed is also a form of evolution) You still fight against feathers? What about the old Zhenyuanlong? Also "just collagen (which would mean the bird fossil feathers are not feathers either)? Isn't a common argument common design = common designer? Why couldn't he have put feathers on dinosaurs? Birds still have scales after all
@@samburns3329 The fossils of sea creatures are found at the tops of mountains. The flood is how they got there. The Bible states that prior to the flood, the waters were gathered together in one place and the dry land.; Geologist have determined there is once a single giant supercontinent and one single ocean: evidence supports the Bible. The Bible states the mountain is with thrust up, and the values were cast down; plate tectonics shows us that collision zones produce mountain ranges and subduction zones produce, deep, rips and values: evidence supports the Bible. The Bible states in beginning God created all living things; the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of life forms in the fossil record with no ancestral forms, which would be necessary for evolution to be true: evidence supports the Bible. The Bible states that as sin enter the world rebellion death came with it; the fossil record shows the extinction of more than 90% of all creatures that ever lived on the earth: science confirms the Bible. in 1864 Charles Darwin predicted that the fossils necessary to confirm his theory of evolution would be found shortly; nearly two centuries later, the evidence has not been found.
There is corruption. The human genome has been mapped and it has been found that the human race is degenerating at a rate between 1% and 2% per generation. Buy some estimates the human race may be extinct in 6000 years.
And because it is unbiological and therefore unclear, it is often used by one of the discussion sites to keep all possibilities open and not really have to take a stand. Guess which side!
@@nathancook2852 scientist differ quite a bit on how they define “species” and the fastest way to promote a barrow among them is to toss that subject into the conversation. “Species” is up for grabs, and the closest analogy is really “family”, i.e., the family of mammals, birds, insects, plants, et al. Cats reproduce as cats within the feline family, dogs reproduce as dogs within the canine family, birds as birds, etc.
You arbitrarily chose Family as the classification level for Baramin. You're gonna have to show me how that's objectively true. No non-christian would be swayed by this argument.
@@vantagepoint9270 the Bible doesn't say that all snakes talk, it says that one snake talked. That event is not something we would be able to verify through the scientific method. We do know that people can communicate with animals and there are even animals who can talk (parrots). You said snakes are consistent with evolution? Nope. No scientist has observed the transition of a snake to a non-snake. All we actually can observe is that snakes always produce more snakes just like Genesis 1 says God designed them to. Please accept observable science and documented history; receive Christ.
@@vantagepoint9270 "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist) So, no: scientists are not agreed regarding evidence for evolution. They agreed there is no evidence.
And that's why one's religious book with dozens of translations and countless interpretations whereas the other is a scientific theory with global scientific support and a variety of applications?
AIG: we believe in micro evolution and we believe that kinds rapidly speciated after a world wide flood Also AIG: EVOLUTION CANT POSSIBLY HAPPEN NOT EVEN RAPIDLY
A Question For Atheists: (who believe in Evolution) Considering the concept of confusion was mentioned in the video... Perhaps we Christians are merely confused about what Evolution is... Please define: Evolution. Also... Is Evolution not an explanation of the variety of life on Earth starting with possibly: Prokaryotes... To finally: Humans and other more "complex" creatures? With organisms similar to Prokaryotes being the first life forms on Earth?
Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. 🤦 BTW hundreds of millions of Christians accepted evolution as fact, only backwarded creationists still ignore reality.
*Please define: Evolution.* In the general sense, it's any change over time. In science, unless specified as the general definition, it is the fact that reproductive populations change genetically across many generations, and the theory that explains how this happens. *Is Evolution not an explanation of the variety of life on Earth starting with possibly: Prokaryotes.* That evolution happens is a fact. _How_ it happens is a mechanistic explanation of Earth's biodiversity, but that wouldn't change even if we found out creationism is true. *To finally: Humans and other more "complex" creatures? With organisms similar to Prokaryotes being the first life forms on Earth?* The evident evolutionary history of Earth life points as far away from YEC beliefs as is possible.
evolution is a model that describes how species change and differentiate over time. it does explain some of the natural variation we see, it does not tell us how we got from prokaryotes to complex life forms.
@@anthonycope1662is evolving a single celled organism into a multiple celled organism good? Scientist did that in a lab,just by external stimuli...in 2 years...
@@logicalatheist1065 Would you consider Evolutionary Creation thru a reincarnation recycling process which explains every thing. A three dimensional thinker resolve conflicts by seeing them as Paradoxical and by adding a 3rd perspective finds a Tri - Unity that shows that duel conflicting arguments can be both right or wrong at the same time. It take Two to Tango but it takes 3 to prove and witness to Facts. Unity in Diversity takes asking important questions and then diligent seeking for answers that make a wise student of wisdom and understanding possible. Guest what I keep my shoes on and used my God given brain. Could it be both Atheist as well as Creationist need to take off both shoes and count there Blessing Moment by Moment Daily that contribute to the well being of all things including one's self. Blessing to you. AMEN
I love when people who don't understand biology, try to debunk biology lol. If evolution didnt work, we'd have figured that out a long long time ago. Same as literally all scientific theories ever, that you also have no problem accepting as fact. Your refusal to accept specific scientific theories simply because of your bronze age beliefs is quite humorous.
Evolutionist have figured out that there is no fossil evidence to support the claim of animals changing into other kinds of animals. "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist) "I will lay it on the line-there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. (Colin Patterson , British palaeontologist, Natural History Museum) 1864: Darwin publishes his book on evolution. 2024: no evidence to support evolution has been found. To this date: evolutionist cannot explain the source of biological information in DNA, the code in all living things: there is no code without a coder.
Speaking of evolution, hasn't religion evolved an awful lot, from buckets full of gods in mountains and tree's, causing thunder or stopping rain, living in clouds, sending plagues or erupting volcanos and sending earthquakes. Those angry gods that needed to be appeased with offerings or cash given to the priests. Anyone would think that if there was a god he could manage to get his story straight. But what we actually have is every tribe and its aunt with different versions of creation. What we should see is exactly the same version of creation and exactly the same commandments in every civilization from the Aztecs to the Zulus, but it would appear that the priests, left right and centre all over the globe are just making whatever fairy stories it takes to get cash out of their gullible followers. Imagine if a Nigerian prince told you that he had a place for you in a fancy afterlife hotel... And that all you had to do to gain entry was to follow his rules and pay him a small amount of cash every weekend and he would guarantee your room, oh and if you do break any of the rules, don't worry, just pay extra cash and he will still let you in.
You may give your attention to whatever god you wish, mine is focused on the god of the Bible. The Bible states in the beginning, God created the heavens in the earth; Evan Hubbles disclosure in 1927 of the red shift demonstrated the universe is expanding, therefore had an origin: evidence supports the Bible The Bible states God stretched out the heavens like a fabric; astronomical observations the universe is expanding more rapidly every moment: evidence confirms the Bible. The Bible states God created all living things; the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of life forms, not a gradual chain of ancestral forms that would be necessary for evolution: evidence confirms the Bible The Bible states the waters were gathered into one place and the dry land appeared; geologist have determined there was once a single giant supercontinent and a single ocean: evidence supports the Bible. The Bible states the Earth hangs unsuspended in space; astronomical observations confirm the earth is held in its orbit around the sun via gravitational effect: confirms the Bible. The Bible states that sin entered the world through man’s rebellion, and with it came death; the fossil record shows the extinction of more than 90% of all life forms that ever existed on the earth: evidence supports the Bible. The Bible states that as sin and the world, so did corruption; the second law of thermodynamics states that the energy level of the universe is descending to a low, common level (it being understood the universe is a closed) and that comp city is degenerating into chaos: evidence confirms the Bible. The Bible states the mountains were thrust up, and the valleys were cast down; plate tectonics demonstrates collision zones produce mountain ranges, and subduction zones produce rift and valleys: evidence supports the Bible. The Bible states that all humans are members of the same race; DNA confirms all humans are members of the same race: evidence support supports the Bible. The Bible states Jesus Christ was the active agent of creation; Frederick Hoyle’s discovery of finding let him to believe in a supreme being who has adjusted the laws of physics so that life is possible: evidence supports the Bible.
@@denvan3143 Not a single thing you listed actually supports a literal Bible. That was an amazing exhibition of trying to make the evidence fit your predrawn conclusions.
@@denvan3143 the bible is deliberately vague and meant to be reinterpreted, just like an astrological prediction it plays so loose with the facts anyone can 'read' whatever they want in it. You can watch the different versions of god evolve from one testament to the next and that's before you start reading texts from other religions. If you want to know the true origins of religions and gods just look at the money that's extracted and see where it goes. A god capable of creating a vast universe in a few days wouldn't need any of your cash... Though if you do need a priest to tell you every weekend not to kill or you would do so, it's probably best that you keep paying him to remind you.
@@samburns3329 actually, no: men of the Christian faith like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday we’re foundations in modern science. Having read their Bible thoroughly and with the understanding that God is the great lawgiver, who created moral laws to keep life from being chaotic and physical laws to keep the universe from being chaotic, looked for laws of nature, which is precisely why we called them “laws of nature “” laws of science”. It’s odd that you would say I’m trying to make the evidence fit the Bible, since each of these events as I related them took place before evidence confirmed what was in the Bible. I suggest you step beyond the boundaries of your ideology and examine the findings of science and what the scripture says in an objective fashion. While my parents attended church until I was nine years old, I had no idea who God was nor any notion of why Jesus was his son and why that was relevant. I was an agnostic who began to study the Bible in my teams because it is a significant document in world history. I also studied the claims of evolution because it also is significant, concerning the past two centuries. I found the Bible to be credible and evolution to be deficient in evidence to the point of it being irrelevant.
@@denvan3143 The one thing all of those famous scientists you named have in common is *they all kept their religious beliefs out of their scientific work.* You creationists always forget that part while trying to cram your religious beliefs into science. _I found the Bible to be credible and evolution to be deficient in evidence_ That's a testimony to your ignorance of the scientific evidence for evolution, not a reflection on the evidence itself.
Evolution has been proved repeatedly ever since mankind took to agriculture. Domestic crops & animals have been constantly mutated by the selection of required traits. This is exactly what nature does by continuous changes in habitat & environment over the Millenia. The minute difference in each generation permits some individuals to survive change, while others fall prey to it, so they cannot go on to reproduce, while the lucky were able to do so. Still the so called Noah's Ark could still not hold 1400 animal 'kinds', with all the food they would have needed to survive for a year. Then how did all these distinct species find their way to the far distant & very different habitats around the world? & why were certain types, like those of Australia, the marsupials, so confined to that island. But you have to allow for rapid evolution to permit so many different species to have come about in some 4000 years, but this is not long enough for the Millions of species that now exist. If Biblical rapid evolution were true, then new animals & plants would be popping up everywhere all the time, almost daily, one could not fail to notice. The truth is change can be fast or slow, or stop altogether if there is no incentive, but it still take ages for totally new forms to come about. Though you will say 'God' decided to stop evolution recently, to explain that this isn't happening. But your iriginal story was that 'God' made. ALL creation in one week as it is today. That negates any new species, by any means & at any rate, but you now have to deny this, as with the Impossible Flood myth, because in just cannot work. You cannot have it both ways. Humans have created new species through farming which demonstrate how evolution works & is true. The Bible stories are just that, stories, myths dreamt up in ancient times before mankind had any real knowledge of how things actually work. Why you insist in trying to prove this impossible fantasy to be real is beyond ridiculous, it's infantile.
They do that because everyone laughs at them for thinking all the species in the world could fit on a boat. So they claim only the general kinds were there and diversified later. Somehow they are too clueless to understand that is evolution.
I suggest you review the video. The animals taken on board the Ark Were pairs that represented families; rapid evolution is subdivision within families. Rapid evolution does not equate to common descent, which is the theory that all animals came from a common ancestor. 160 years of paleontology does not support that premise. Rapid evolution, results in species within families, but does not create new families, nor is there crossover between them; nothing will change from the cat family to the dog family, no reptile will cross over to the bird family or vice versa.
@@jockyoung4491 two things about your character, is evidence in your comment: (1) Would you have learned has been at the feet of authoritarians, before whom you have submitted in silence, hence the attitude you take here. You are not a harsh schoolmaster, your theatrics are in vain. (2) It is evident you fear ridicule above everything else and will do anything to avoid it. You appear to be rather thin skinned, to assume that is a universal reflex. As you are a collectivist, you are a herd animal: you do not determine your behavior, it is determined for you by the herd. As an alternative, I suggest you engage in personal rapid evolution and become an individualist.
@denvan3143 common descent is supported by a huge range of observable evidence. HeLa cells are a clear case of a new kind by anyones definition. Living single cell organisms that emerged from human cancer cells.
I am genuinely baffled as to why any religion still exists in this day and age. So much scientific factual evidence to debunk it, and only some ancient fairy tales to support it.
Fear of death. Wanting to be told how to behave and what to think. Lack of education or intelligence preventing understanding of science and just accepting "god did it" as the answer to everything.
Religion does not have to assert scientific "facts". It is only when fundamentalists insist on a literal interpretation of religious documents that they ope themselves to open refutation by science. If they kept to faith, and more value questions like purpose and morality, there need be no contradiction.
@@gregoryt8792 _First you should know 67% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Christian scientists._ *0%* of all Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work supporting Biblical creation. 😊
First of all what is an evolutionist It is just evolution and one of the cornerstones of science If you can disprove it why don't you go get your Nobel Prize
@@oldcountryboy Your hubris has kept your comment from having any impact on anybody, because your comment is not comprehensible in the English language. Yes, I am an English teacher.
@@statutesofthelord Hey Mr. Teacher I went and had my 8-year-old nephew read what I wrote he was able to read it and understand it just fine So either you are lying that you couldn't understand it or you are not as smart as an 8-year-old
I hope you see this I’m 13 and studying Genesis and it mentions the waters above. The expanse/firmament includes the sky and universe so I’m wondering what happened to the water. It can’t be clouds since clouds don’t exist above earth, it can have been the water that did the flood since it would just freeze traveling through space and gravity, and since heaven isn’t in our dimension it can’t be gods water reservoir from the psalms. If anyone sees this please answer me.
@@samburns3329 I mean isn’t it convenient that that ancient mythology somehow explains erosion and Pangea for early earth and multiple people groups record a flood?
@@King_Leonidas723 The story doesn't explain anything in the real world. The actual physical evidence disproved a global Noah's Flood over two centuries ago. The oldest continually inhabited cities in the world are over 10,000 years old and lived right through the Flood without noticing. There are lots of geologic formations (look up angular unconformities) which take millions of years to form and are impossible in a one year Flood. Genetics shows a Noah's Ark never happened. We also have evidence of human cultures going back continuously for over 150,000 years. Best to just deal with the fact the Noah's Flood story is not real.
@@King_Leonidas723 All those groups that have recorded floods are before the supposed time frame of the Biblical flood. Pangea was 300 million yrs ago. Japan's recorded history runs right through the time frame of the Biblical flood, and never mentions it. There are large recorded floods that are supported by geological evidence, but they are only regional. We know what to look for, and there is no evidence of a global flood.
@@nathancook2852 Your assuming the world is that old? The carbon dating must used pre determines numbers in the computer to bad it on that’s why people who see rock form from lava and get it tested get it to be hundreds of thousands of years old. Yous also assume there was never any contaminations and that it ages the same over time
@@Jraethyme No it is not. Millions of Christians accept the science of evolution. And I'm sure there are atheists who know nothing about science. Faith and science have nothing to do with each other.
Evolution theory is an attempt to explain away the existence of God the creator. So yes, it is very correlated with atheist beliefs. That fact that you don't equate the two demonstrates that you have no clue.
@@MarkAtherton-bf4pq No it is not. Evolution is science. Science can say nothing either way about the existence of God. Equating the two is a dishonest creationist talking point. Words have meanings.
It's an attempt to patch up the sloppy terminology that scientists use. They limit their classifications to domains, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses and species. Creationists replace the whole lot with "kind", because that's what illiterate Bronze Age goat herders would say.
I just always go back to Genesis. They produced after their own kind.. and God made the wild (wolves) and the tame (dogs). Plus god said "it was good" meaning no change needed to be perfected.
Yes. I do. I believe it to be a Miracle. (small correction it was sheep not horses but whatever) A non natural happening. Is a miracle. And dont even bother to try and use science to prove that miracles cant happen.
@@denvan3143 I know what zebras are. I know what the bible states regarding how animals got stripes and spots. Please enlighten me and show me what I'm ignorant of here.
I just always go back to Genesis. They produced after their own kind.. and God made the wild (wolves) and the tame (dogs). Plus god said "it was good" meaning no change needed to be perfected.
Smith: "...Abbott tries to explain to Costello the last names of the players on the baseball team..." Mr. Smith didn't listen to the routine. As is made clear in the beginning of the sketch, the names are their nicknames, not their last names. From a script of the skit: "Lou Costello: Well you know I’ve never met the guys. So you’ll have to tell me their names, and then I’ll know who’s playing on the team. Lou Costello: You mean funny names? Bud Abbott: Strange names, pet names … like Dizzy Dean… Lou Costello: His brother Daffy.". Smith: "...the divvying up and expression of subsets of pre-existing genetic information that was front-loaded into the genomes of all the different kinds of creatures God made..." Anyone who can make sense of that statement, please enlilghten me. Smith: "...are descended from the limited number, approximately 1400, of the various air-breathing kinds of creatures that went aboard and exited Noah's ark..." Apparently marine mammals and fish are left out of this equation. I doubt there were any blue whales on the ark, but regardless of that, fish, and the air-breathing mammals that prey on them, need different kinds of water. Most sea creatures need salt water. Fresh water fish need non-saline water. Any change in the salinity of the water would have killed off most of the fish, and those mammals that prey on them. In addition to that, as anyone who has lived through a flood knows, the billions of land animals that were left to drown would have been floating around and rotting in the flood waters, along with the humans who died with them. The water they float around in is not healthy. Smith says the current creationist position is basically the position of LInnaeus. I'll just point out that Linnaeus died in 1778. almost 80 years before Origin of the Species was published. We cannot know whether he would have accepted it's conclusion or not. We do know this. LInnaeus had questions about the creation story that he tried to answer. Exactly what Darwin did. By the way, Darwin wasn't even born until thirty years after Linnaeus died. He would not have been surprised by whatever position Linnaeus took before he died. That postion would have been well known to Darwin, long before he wrote Origin of the Species. One last thing. Dogs are a pretty poor example to use, because they didn't evolve naturally. Humans took a hand, breeding pairs with certain characteristics they wanted. That greatly accelerated the process of evolution. Nature doesn't work that way. In order for a characteristic to become "stuck" in a species, it has to have value for reproduction, and it has to spread through the species. That process takes more time than deliberate attempts to get the characteristics you want by enforcing breeding between the members of the species that have it.
You know, the earth's atmosphere and environment was vastly different before the flood, than it is now. Apparently there's evidence of ferns and amphibians- In Antarctica of all places. And the oxygen level being different explains why there was so much more gigantism (think giant marsupials, insects, (maybe even the dinosaurs were affected by this?), etc) than there is now.
@@grapesofmath1539 Yes, the earth's environment was vastly different millions of years ago. Even a few thousand years ago. All of present day Canada, and some of northern USA, were covered in ice. That ice age lasted from roughly 115,000 YA to around 11,000 YA. In British Columbia Canada there is fossilized sea life in the Burgess Shale, a fossil bed of sea creatures high in the Rocky Mountains. Given the Burgess Shale is roughly 500 million years old, that would be before the Flood. However, I'm not sure how this affects what I said in my original comment. Perhaps you could explain?
"Dogs are a pretty poor example to use, because they didn't evolve naturally. " - There never was evolution. Dogs speciated from wolves through gene loss. Wolves have more diverse genome than any dog. "Humans took a hand, breeding pairs with certain characteristics they wanted. That greatly accelerated the process of evolution." - Nonsense. Dogs have never evolved. When you breed pairs with certain characteristics you get more one-sided genomes. That's why so many dogs have hereditary diseases. Wolves do not have them. Evolutionists should learn - and they eventually WILL learn - that there is no evolution on this planet, only intraspecific variation 😎
"Most sea creatures need salt water. Fresh water fish need non-saline water. " - All sea creatures were adapted with the water that was 4500 years ago. Current salinity has developed from it because of erosion.
@@jounisuninen Given how much salt is in the ocean today, and the speed at which salt is being added to the ocean, it must have taken millions of years for the oceans to become as saline as they are. Rounding up all the ocean salt would give us a sphere the size of the moon. Somehow I doubt that amount of salt was added over the last 4500 years without someone noticing. It's also true that the faster the oceans became saline, the faster must have been the evolution of sea creatures. I mean, not much happens to species over 4500 years. There's an ocean quahog that can live to 500 years of age. Not many generations in those 4500 years. So either evolution is proceeding at a very rapid rate, or that 4500 year estimate is wrong.
"Evolutionists" have NOTHING to do with the creation of life in any way. Evolution is the process of change in an organism over time, not how that organism came to be initially. The video starts out by saying the terms used by the different sides aren't clearly defined for both sides to have a common starting point, then incorrectly calls people that study the origins of life evolutionists. It's as if using the incorrect terminology is intentional to help further the "Young Earth Creationist" views as being more logically sound. I believe that's what is called "gaslighting"; something those pushing this nonsensical belief continuously use in arguments. 🤔 🤨
"Evolutionists have NOTHING to do with the creation of life in any way. Evolution is the process of change in an organism over time, not how that organism came to be initially." - It is true that the evolutionist theory has no ground under it. Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, for good reason. Evolutionists know it's impossible to prove that life could have triggered evolution. Evolution has no explainable connection to the first spark of life. Evolution is a fairy tale as long as this connection can't be found. Atheistic evasion tactics: "Origins of evolution is not part of evolution." A pathetic escape hatch ... Evolution can't happen without life, so in formal logic the origins of evolution MUST be part of evolution. Can we explain evolution without life? Of course not. The problem for evolutionists is that abiogenesis would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so there never could’ve been abiogenesis in the first place. No abiogenesis - no evolution because God is ruled out ... The abstract of "evolution" is like a building sketched on a paper. In that evolutionary sketch the building has no footing i.e. no scientific explanation how the assumed abiogenetic emergence of life and the emerging evolution could get connected. Of course, being a mere imaginary drawing, this "evolutionary building" doesn’t need a basement ... In real life evolution would need a basement, otherwise (macro)evolution is just fantasy - as we know it is! Evolutionists work on their imaginary evolutionary sketch, study it and add all kinds of "evidence" and details to their ”evolution building” to make it look credible. However there is still no footing under that building. Neither do evolutionists know how to draw it. This evolutionary building floating in the air is only on paper and it will forever stay on paper. The evolutionary ”building on paper” can't actualize in real life, just like the theory of evolution can't actualize in real life. All empirical studies to prove "macro" evolution (new life forms emerging from existing life forms) in laboratories have failed. Only intraspecific adaptive variation has ever happened and this the evolutionists call "evolution". We can call it ”micro evolution” if we want, but it really has nothing to do with the hypothetical ”Universal Common Ancestor” i.e. with evolution.
Evolutionist stridently disclaim any connection to origin of life for a simple reason: there is no evidence of it and no theory how it could’ve happened and yet it is essential to evolution, as life is necessary for life to possibly have evolved from one form to another. Your disclaimer is desperation. It is hypocrisy: on the one hand, you demand the source of life for creation, but on the other hand, you deny in responsibility for providing the source of life for evolution. It is a double standard that is unsupportable.
Why you have your own opinion concerning the young earth idea, creation is logical, evolution is not, in its aspects of cosmology, physics, and biology. After 1927 evolutionist could no longer say that the universe was eternal, therefore there was no need of an eternal creator. Edwin Hubbles disclosure of the red shift, demonstrated the universe had a beginning. Evolutionist cannot explain creation without the creator; they can only say “it just happened“ a complete disassociation from cause and effect, a failure of logic, no more than an embrace of magic. Frederick Hoyles, discovery of fine-tuning demonstrates the adjusting of the laws of physics by supreme being so that life is possible. The evolutionist explanation is “it just happened”: magic. The source of biological instructions in DNA, the code and all living things is explained by evolutionist as “it just happened“: magic. I don’t believe in magic, I believe in cause and effect. a conscious creator is a logical explanation for the universe, the laws of physics and the biological instructions in all living things. I will leave the magic to you.
Evolutionists would love to have evidence for the creation of life, they don’t have it, even though they have been searching for it, have failed and so have sought to disown it. But with no explanation of how life could arrive spontaneously, there can be no evolution in which life forms evolve from other life forms. It is a double standard: on the one hand, evolutionist demand evidence of the source of life for creation, but any responsibility to provide evidence of the source of life for evolution. That isn’t science, that is dogma.
Thanks so much for bringing truth in such a peaceful environment & wisdom to carry it through. Love your videos...certainly beats these bad news videos any day! God bless you
Michael Behe's book The Edge of Evolution is a great resource when it comes to the various taxonomy kinds and how well evolutionary theory explains and doesn't explain some of those levels of differentiation.
"how well evolutionary theory explains and doesn't explain " - There are so many different evolution theories that the evolutionist themselves don't know the "right" theory anymore 🤣 1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution. (Wikipedia) 2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago. (Wikipedia) Point 1 is true as anyone can see but it's not evolution. It doesn't claim that new genera or new life forms appear from the existing species. Scientists have observed only intraspecific (within species) variation. This variation is called "evolutionary process" by the desperate Darwinist. Point 2 has never been scientifically proven. It would need a continuous flow of totally new genetic information which is not found in the species' own genome. This kind of evolution is of course fiction. It's remarkable that nobody has got Nobel Price for proving evolution that could produce new taxonomic genera from some existing species. "A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." (Wikipedia) Question: How many times has evolution been repeatedly observed or experimentally measured, getting positive empirical evidence? Answer: Not once! Evolution has been tested innumerable times with tens of thousands generations of test organisms. Still every empirical test has proved that evolution does not happen. No new life forms, no new body plans, no new species emerge from the existing species … Read: No evolution, only intraspecific variation aka "micro evolution" which really is not evolution at all.
Michael Behe is one of the heads of the Discovery Institute. This creationist organization has made it its primary mission torpedoing the theory of evolution. By all means, including dishonest and even lies! And this, when Christians are committed to the truth.
All of biology and medical sciences are based on evolution occurring, and yet Calvin tries to claim evolution is a myth. That is either ignorance, or willful lying. Seeing as how Calvin is corrected in the comments of every video he makes, I'm going with lying.
“No, all of biology and medical science is patently not based on evolution; evolutionary understanding is based on processes now known to be in existence, and that is the study of biology and medical science, not on any hypothesis of how life might have been in eons past. Phylogeny does not recapitulate ontology.
@@denvan3143 First of all, why did you start with quotation marks? Secondly, yes, they are base on process known to exist, which includes evolution. Thank you for reiterating my point.
@@nathancook2852 ignore the quotation mark, it was a misty typing. There is no reiteration of your point because you have none; it is an exercise in circular reasoning. Perceiving the past in terms of processes known to be an existence is an interpretation of the past; you cannot then look at this interpretation of the past and claim projecting that onto the past has any bearing on medical science and biology. You evidence, a lack of understanding of Charles Darwin’s theory, his methods and his findings. Rather, you exhibit, the behavior of someone and scotched in religion, and, at that, a religion in which ens is rejected, and belief is cling to the zealously. I have the advantage that I approached evolution as an agnostic, having no understanding of our belief in God, but rejecting evolution because it was threadbare of the necessary evidence. as an agnostic, I approached the subject of God and then the person of God - and found him to be valid. If you don’t understand what interaction is with God, that is understandable: you have no knowledge of him, therefore you couldn’t be expected to know what a relationship with God is like. But as you give no evidence that you actually understand what evolution is, I think we are several miles away from any sort of cogent discussion of either subject.
Absolutely not in Linnaean taxonomy it's largely based on traits & not genetics... eg Invertebrates vs Vertebrates, Mammals, Reptiles, Cold vs warm-blooded, Chordates etc. As far as genetic grouping, it's probably phylogenetics, cladistics & barcoding
@@easyminimal_6130 the assignments today are based on genetics. Obviously that wasn’t the case in the 1700s. It is now. The *names* often correlate with specific derived traits, but the groups themselves are based on molecular data.
Interesting that calvin refers to baraminology. In 2010 research used baraminology techniques to show that archaeopteryx is linked to both dinosaurs and birds. Check the paper Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs
Your use of the word “linked” in this context is vague; regardless, there are no intermediate fossil species that connects to archeopteryx Nor to birds. What’s missing from the “link” you cite are all the links of the chain that would be necessary to a phylogeny between dinosaur and archeopteryx And from there to birds.
@annieoaktree6774 is this a joke? You did a quick search on the Internet, found the first thing they had the word “pogy in it”. Did you notice that the cat didn’t evolve from anything else? Period I doubt you read it yourself, otherwise you would’ve provided a summary of your understanding of the subject. Don’t bother me again again, kid, you’ve gotv.
Young earth creationist are in the same category as flat earthers. Both literally just stick their fingers in their ears and shout to avoid the actual science.
Correct: gods (plural) are not reality; God is reality. The universe is not eternal; it had a beginning, therefore, because material could not invent itself. It was created by what is immaterial: God. Nature did not create itself, it was created by the supernatural: God. The reality is that the laws of physics must be exactly as they are or life would be impossible in the universe; it led the discover of fine-tuning, Frederick Hoyle, to understand that the universe has a theistic origin. That is the reality of physics. The biological instructions in DNA is code; without a coder there is no code: that is reality. And God is reality.
" Deny actual science, but believe in a non proven imaginary skyward. " "Science means "knowledge." So, history, maths, geograghy, biology, chemistry etc is "science." That said, the Bible is proven by maths, history, geography, biology etc. Evolution is not. "imaginary" is evolution.
@@marcj3682 All the Bible can claim is that a few of the places there were named are real, and a few of the characters share names with people that history can corroborate existed. NONE of the works, deeds, or "miracles" in the bible can be corroborated.
@@denvan3143 Calvin equates "kind" to family, when in Leviticus it clearly describes "kind" as what science would call a species. Dishonesty. As well as the title being dishonest. Have I pointed out enough dishonesty yet? Or does Calvin have to meet a certain threshold of lies before it can be dishonesty?
@waggyquack974, Can you disprove anything in this video by reverse engineering a Velocitaptor et al from a modern Rhode Island Red by simple Gene Editing?
@nathancook2852 No, it wasn't the narrator of this video who put "Kind" at the Family Level, but the inventor of the Modern Taxonomy...Carl Linneaus. Linneaus first began his Taxonomy by researching all known texts and commentaries about the Bible’s "Kind". For most body plans, Linneaus put Kind as the Family or Genus Level. Some creatures are harder to classify. But to say "Species"= "Kind" is plain wrong because just in the Canius Family different dog breeds can easily interbreed. Same in the Equine and Bovine groups. A Bison can interbreed with your Holstein Milk cow, a Zebra can interbreed with a donkey and a Horse.
A few questions. A. What makes you state that, do you disagree? Thats fine, I disagree with you but that does not give me any right to call you a “lier without shame” B. How can you prive that everyone who works for them is knowingly lying, correct or incorrect.
@@TacoBel Because every video quote mines and twists facts. They give no context and never provide the full article or work they claim to cite. That is dishonest...
@@nathancook2852 I mean, they're probably assuming their viewers aren't lazy and don't need to be spoonfed, but I suppose they could improve a bit on that. Still, it's important for us to do our own research, too. We can't just take everything a video says at face value. Heck, even I disagree with the video when it says that foxes are a kind of dog. I don't _strongly_ disagree, they're certainly quite similar to dogs and wolves, but I still think foxes are their own thing.
@@grapesofmath1539 It is intentional when they do it in every video. They absolutely believe their viewers are lazy and need to be spoon fed. In fact, they count on it. Which is why this comment section, and all their comment sections, are full of people with zero scientific literacy.
Organisms don't evolve out their "kinds" as you like to put it. We can both agree that anything descended from a dog can also be classified as a dog. The difference between you and me is that I can acknowledge that no matter how different any dog's descendants are from their ancestors, they'll still be dogs and I'd be willing to look at how they changed and diversified. Much in the same way how I can acknowledge how humans and chimpanzees are closer related to each other than either is to any other apes, how they're closer to each other than tigers are to mountain lions, and how all of them are mammals. You, on the other hand, would eyeball point A and point Z, ignore every point between them, and would only refer to those descendants as being a part of the same "created kind" based on whether or not they visually look similar enough to you and if you were told, at an early age, that they're dogs.
I know others have already said this, but none of the references that calvin puts up at the start relate to rapid evolution if you actually look them up. There's lies, damn lies, and then calvin
@@Nils-gi5bv didn’t the popes authorize the Spanish inquisition? They probably didn’t like my ancestors, Lutheens and Irish protestants. The Popes didn’t like Galileo and here they are on the wrong side of science once again.
@@denvan3143 At that time, the Catholic Church was not on the side of science. At least it apparently does today, albeit again with some delay. Incidentally, this is not a statement by the Catholic Church alone: "We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology." Worldwide statement of all Central Conferences of the United Methodist Church. Similar statements you will find from Lutherans, Reformed an a lot of other Protestant churches.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 since darwin published his theory we have observed billions of ape births and billions of human births and zero transitions. We have a large enough sample size to know evolution has failed. Meanwhile the fact that creatures produce after their own kind 100% of the time every moment of every day is clear evidence that Genesis 1 is valid. Accept the evidence; accept Christ.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 Darwinian evolution is not observable in nature, in the laboratory or in the fossil record, therefore it is not science, but merely a desperate belief system.
@@Bomtombadi1 as long as AIG stays close to the word of God, there is no lies and that's exactly what they do. In God there is no deceit. He is incapable of evil and therefore cannot say anything evil. His word is truth and nothing can change that fact.
God please continue to protect me and my two children. Father keep me encouraged because being a single mother with autistic children is overwhelming and challenging especially now because I’m homeschooling them so my hours to work are limited. I’m desperately trying to provide for them. Lord give me strength As I continue to struggle to buy groceries and as I struggle to pay rent. I know you are with me Heavenly Father. You are the God of possible. Please change my situation.
You again? Seen your pleas for attention in other threads. The woman who keeps asking for prayers and takes no action
Yeah, I don't know what the deal is. This person's been on numerous channels for years. At least 3 or 4 years with exact same message. By now some of those kids must be out of school seriously. I'm not exaggerating. I don't know what I don't know if they're looking for money. I don't know if they're just confused. I don't know what it is. I used to think it was real but now I don't.@@Bomtombadi1
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
Try praying to God not the UA-cam comment section
@Ray-vb5mg I second this.
If you want us to pray for you, you can ask ma’am. If you’re here to pray aloud so that all may hear, I’m not sure this is the place for that, if any place.
@Bomtombadi1 I’m afraid that’s exactly what it’s for. I’m surprised there’s no CashApp or PayPal here either.
I am a follower of Christ, and even I know that He doesn’t call us to sit back lazily and wait for things to happen. Jesus calls us to take action, taking up our cross daily-not posting “woe is me” videos for donations.
Thanks for keeping the comment section open, I hate how a lot of fellow creationists block comments.
I hate it too, but I understand it. Reading the tiresomely idiotic comments of Darwinists who clearly didn't understand the argument and resort to their typical ad hominem insults gets old very fast. I can't believe I used to be one of those people.
@@SalvableRuin
Maybe if you listened with an open mind you might learn something. Or is that exactly why you don't?
@@jockyoung4491 I will repeat this, and hopefully you will learn something if you have an open mind:
"I will lay it on the line-there is not
one such [transitional] fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument. (Colin Patterson FRS,
British palaeontologist, Natural
History Museum)
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist)
1864: Darwin‘s book on evolution.
2024: Evidence for evolution is still not found, almost two centuries.
@@SalvableRuin You're being hilariously hypocritical.
The reason why most creationist (and flat earther channels) do this is to maintain the echo chamber more easily. It does hurt the appearance of credibility slightly but most flat earthers and creationists still chose to control their herd's minds further.
He's right. Definition of terms and labels is a frequent basis for argument. So, exact what is a "kind"?
A kind is kinda whatever a creationist needs it to be at that particular moment.
Calvin actually came the closest I've seen to actually defining it here. He said it was roughly at the family level. I'd like to know on what basis that was decided though. Since no kinds seem to be named in the bible
@@mattbrook-lee7732 But they are: Leviticus clearly describes birds as kinds as we would call them species.
@@richardgregory3684 what verse please. I'll check it
@@mattbrook-lee7732 Leviticus 11:13 where it clearly describes birds like black kites, herons, ravens as "kinds". If you're goign to describe ravens as being multiple kinds, which is exactly what it does, it is evidend: when the bible says "kind" it is what we would call "species". But believers in the Noah nonense want us to believe that "kind" would sit far above species level, perhaps even to the point where all birds would simpyl be "bird kind".
You knew you were watching AiG Canada when you heard "aboot" multiple times. 😆
As a Canadian… I am still confused but very proud aboot that
And seeing Calvin wearing seven layers of clothing in Spring.
And when the talking head didn't talk to you but to some imaginary person behind your left shoulder: breaks any intimacy with the viewer and just looks kooky.
Truth is truth regardless of accent or language. Thats aboot all I have to say on that.
@@TheSaintFrenzy LOL!
Apparently everything is allowed to evolve... except Linnaeus' definitions. Throwing him out because he changed his definition of species is like throwing out all of Einstein because his view of the steady-state universe model changed.
There is very little of Linnaeus left in modern phylogenetics. We don't "throw out" a person, but science marches on. Science is not based on any person.
@@jockyoung4491 Right, just like Darwin's idea's have been updated, and many are even outdated as well. But that is what happens when you are able to analyze new evidence. Funny how AIG makes this out to be a bad thing.
@@nathancook2852 I think the video’s segment regarding Linnaeus was intended to address those who point to Linnaeus’s expanding ‘species’ to account for more variability within species as evidence that Judeo-Christian forefathers ‘moved the goal posts’ to try and ‘force’ alignment between Biblical teaching and new scientific observations
@jockyoung4491 That's a bit of a strawman as no one claimed that science is based on one person. The claim, and it is a correct one, is that the person who created and defined the term "species" also defined the term "kind". Both definitions changed based on observation.
@user-bg7fr1dz8c The term species did not exist before the late 1700s, and neither the Bible nor the "forefathers" defined what a "kind" was. Therefore, there could be neither 'alignment' nor lack of alignment thereof.
one day earth will look back at evolution and wonder how was this ever a theory people believed.
Because there’s literally more demonstrable evidence for evolution than there is for you as a human being. More PhD candidates have produced more information than you have produced or has been produced about you in your entire life. The fact that you deny it in favor of magic is personal incredulity.
You do know it's demonstrable and is the strongest scientific theory out there with medical leaps in curing previously genetic disorders and fatal hereditary problems ... deny evolution then refuse done cancer treatments because you don't believe the science behind it if you want, see where prayer alone gets you 🙏 😂
It's because there's evidence.....religious people just want to stick their heads in the sand and act like it doesn't exist
No, that's genesis. And that day is already here
No that's Genesis. And that day is already here
Odd, I thought YEC were the biggest proponents of rapid evolution, looking at evolution from the time of Noah until today, which mainstream science thinks is way too fast in theory to have been possible.
"I thought YEC were the biggest proponents of rapid evolution," - There was no evolution, only speciation just as Calvin explained.
Speciation generates subspecies through gene loss, not through new genes. There are no new genes running around to be picked and used for evolution i.e. to produce the process of a taxonomic species transforming to a new taxonomic genus, family, order ... i.e. to evolution. No such process has ever been scientifically proven.
Natural selection COULD generate evolution by speciation if it COULD deliver the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population. Natural selection (in fact natural elimination!) however delivers nothing. It just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. This is adaptation through gene loss as lost genes give room for the genes that are more useful in the new environment.
This is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the specialized population suffers and goes extinct. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. Repeat: Specialization by devolution, not evolution.
They don't even realize their own contradiction. Or care.
They’re too busy being contrarian to realize they contradict themselves. Calvin does that constantly
@@jockyoung4491 No you ignoramus. Rapid speciation is what YECs would support not rapid evolution . There is a difference. You simply dont understand whats being said .
Its probably because you don't understand speciation isn't evolution...
"rapid evolution"
ecoli after 80,000 generations remain ecoli. 😂😂
Yet they've evolved into over a dozen completely different strains of _E coli._ 🙂
@@Moist._Robot you actually referred to a yt video for science. tells me everything I need to know about you 😂😂
@@HS-zk5nn We have to post summaries. If we post the actual published science research you just soil yourself and run away. 😄
you obviously aren't very intelligent haha
@@Moist._Robot ofc you have been "educating" yourself with Naked Science on yt. try picking up an actual text book sometime 😂😂
So i looked up the articles at the start that say "rapid evolution".
The first one about Sulawesi Babblers is about a 15% size increase in males over females on an island. within the timespan of 30.000 years since they split from the Babblers on the mainland. Rapid by evolutionary standards does not mean rapid by human standards.
The second is about severe natural selection on a bird species because an invasive new type of larger snail that took over the eco system and all birds with smaller beaks had a hard time eating them. Those with larger beaks (that were already around) flourished and within a decade or so only the birds with the large beaks were still around and that gene that caused the large beaks was present in most birds when it wasn't before. This is natural selection at work.
None of the comments that pop up actually mention rapid evolution or anything of the kind.
Calvin lying? How very dare you 🤣
I do have a question about the birds with larger beaks surviving, which I understand and makes sense in the scenario you mentioned, but what confuses me is this:
Lets say you have the same ecosystem with the snail species and all the birds had smaller beaks originally, wouldn't this lead to the all the birds dying out before any of them could have developed beaks strong enough to break through the shells?
There is potential for the smaller birds using rocks to smash the snails onto, but then why didn't the smaller birds do this in this situation? This is where I have an issue with evolution over a long period of time, in a isolated ecosystem where a food source is not accessible due to a inability of the prey, surely the prey would die out before being able to adapt to the environment?
@@pathblazerstudios indeed when the environment changes too quickly and evolution can't keep up species do die out. In fact there have been 5 mass extinctions throughout earth's history where exactly that has happened on a huge scale
@@mattbrook-lee7732 but then if everything died out, wouldn't it automatically suggest a reset on everything and starting all over again. If all the birds die out, then whatever controls the size of the beak would reset to 0 again as there is no knowledge remaining that the birds needed a bigger beak, as evolution doesn't keep a backup file somewhere of what it had previously accomplished just in case something goes wrong. which still makes me wonder, either the smaller birds found a way to sustain themselves over a period of time and develop a larger beak, or the larger beak has always been around.
@pathblazerstudios I don't understand your problem. If a species goes extinct its not a reset, its the end if the line
When they realize that evolution is impossible, even with immeasurable time, they then switch gears and go with "it happens super fast!" 🤣😂🤣
Absolutely none of that is true. But you knew that.
There is nothing illogical or impossible about evolution. If you think there is, then you don't understend it.
Evolution can occur at many different rates, but even at its fastest no individual ever gives borth to a different species. That WOULD be illogical
No-one has ever claimed it happens super fast
@@mattbrook-lee7732 yes, they have. In fact, the hopeful monster hypothesis was developed to address the fossil record having a stark lack of transitionary fossils.
@@noneyabidness9644 Only if by "fast" you mean fast on a geological scale.
We do know that you’re a little baby who runs away from arguments and can’t get his fallacy accusations straight, let alone right.
Just a note on the introduction... I checked the comments that popped up on screen, and *_none_* of them quote "rapid evolution" as "undeniable proof of the story of evolution."
As I am sure some commenters have used examples of rapid evolution as evidence of the modern scientific theory of evolution, the question becomes why Mr. Smith's production team didn't chose any of those comments to pop up. Are they just lazy? Or are they trying to mislead their audience?
Of course they are trying to mislead their audience. That's what creationists do.
(To original poster) Isn't there like hundreds of thousands of comments on each video? You'd need some sort of crawler to reliably find what you're looking for I think
@@jockyoung4491 Teaching and believing in the Second Law of Thermodynamics (decay) is "trying to mislead"? Wow, and here I thought the SLoTD was an actual observable phenomenon in nature lol
@Packhorse-bh8qn You said: _" What on earth are you babbling about?????"_
Please watch the video. At 5 seconds into the video, a number of comments pop up *_in the video,_* but *_none_* of them quote "rapid evolution" as "undeniable proof of the story of evolution" as Mr. Smith claimed. So, what do you think; are the peeps at AiG Canada too lazy to copy a few appropriate quotes, or are they trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or maybe there is some other reason? Take your time...
@Packhorse-bh8qn Yeah, I think the misunderstanding stems from hansdemos skimming the comments of _this_ video, because he thought Calvin Smith was talking about this particular video. I tried to clear that up with my reply but I don't see my reply showing up
@Packhorse-bh8qn You said: _"Oh, please. That's all you have? That's what's known as, "grasping at straws"."_
I gather you have not bothered to watch the first 15 seconds of the video. Are you too lazy, or are you trying to gaslight people?
Always appreciate your humble and informative talks. They help me hone my apologetic and witness to evolutionists. Thank you.
Glad you are enjoying them! 🙂
Please don't raise any if this with anyone who understands evolution. You will make a fool of yourself
@@Lightbearer616 How did you come to that conclusion?
@@mattbrook-lee7732 How did you come to that conclusion?
@@futtermanfarms6791 I've seen people try it. They invariably end up looking either foolish or just stubborn
Mr Smith: Evolutionists claim "rapid evolution", while showing an study that shows a type for bird got 15% bigger in the last 30.000 years.
Also Mr Smith: The cat kind that was on the ark changed into all these amazingly diverse cat-like animals in 5000 years.
This is just stupid.
Hyper evolution am I right?
@@1MDA
That is not a widely accepted scientific term. But evolutionary rates are relative. Even at its fastest, no individual ever gives birth to a different species, and nobody has ever claimed it could.
That was my first thought. If there isnt rapid evolution how did 1000 “kinds” microevolve to million+ species in a few 1000 years?
Im not saying anything about rapid evolution, just showing internal inconsistency in the logic.
And the jelly fish didn't evolve at all in millions
And what?Did it show the particle to human evolution?It is called speciation. The parent population split off to offsprings that share the traits of the parent population. Is that a surprise?
Well if rapid evolution is not real then I guess all the "kinds" that were on the ark could not have evolved into their current diversity, so Noah HAD to have taken all the current day animals onto his ark...which would have basically been unable to fit them all.
"Well if rapid evolution is not real then " - In fact NO evolution is real. Speciation instead is real (as Calvin stated) and it can be extremely fast.
Speciation of course does not generate new species, only subspecies. Dogs are subspecies from wolf and wolf may be subspecies from an older member of Canis Family. The forefather of Canis Family left the Ark 4500 years ago.
@@jounisuninen Speciation is macroevolution, by definition.
By a creationists definition perhaps. Macroevolution is not even a scientific term.
@@all_bets_on_Ganesh Indeed. It's purely a creationist term.
@@burnttoast2790 There is no barrier between "macro" and "micro" evolution and creationists have never been able to demonstrate that there is. The only things they can and always do say about it is "we have never seen it before" and then act incredulous about it.
Pond scum, protozoa, pine trees, parrots, pandas, people 🔥🔥🔥🔥 Calvin was cooking 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 8:00
Great to see that almost all the comments here are calling out these appalling liars.
I like that Abbott and Costello's usage and misunderstanding of common words/phrases are being used by a guy whose side routinely trots out the "Evolution is just a theory" canard.
It literally is just a theory tho. Seems like you don't know what that word means yet 🤔
@@bctalicorn809 Why don't you tell me what you think a theory is, junior? 🤣
@@chocolatestraw3971 According to Wikipedia, a scientific theory is AN explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
Seems you have mixed up theory and law. Theories open up the possibility of being proven wrong, whereas laws are universal observed constants in our world. We have a THEORY of evolution, not a LAW of evolution. And it will always stay a theory and will never be a law, because we never will find those missing links.
@@chocolatestraw3971 Like the theory of evolution, it's a collection of facts and conjecture.
@@bctalicorn809 It's not just a theory, it's scientific theory.
The gappy example is gold ,cause now we see that it can obviously go on for longer with more time ,and end up with even new features all together cause see what just 4 years can do
Keep making video's like this, you are a great asset to the atheism movement.
How so? All he did in this video is clarify the Creationist viewpoint, clairify the evolutionary view, and explained why he believes evolution to not be possible. He did this using research from Evolutionary studies and basic logic.
@@TacoBel Creationism is mythology. He has an agenda, to deny science, and promote religion.
@@TacoBel No, he quote mines and misleads, and often just lies, and he clarified nothing. He also didn't study anything, because if he had he would realize his mistakes. His logic is severely lacking. All of biology and medical sciences are based on evolution occurring, and yet he tries to claim evolution is a myth. That is ignorance, or willful lying, but no where in that is there logic.
Richard Dawkins is trying to push "Cultural Christianity" now
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means 🤔
The ignorance and stupidity exhibited by this site never ceases to amuse. 🙂
This latest brain fart about "rapid speciation" is like watching runoff from a heavy rainstorm rapidly erode a soft dirt hillside, then claiming that proves *all erosion everywhere* (like the wearing smooth of the Appalachian Mountains) must have happened rapidly too. 🤪
just dont be rude about it
@@1MDA
I agree, but these videos do insult our intelligence with their illogical arguments amnd outright lies.
@@Lightbearer616 Lying its not a crime, its not agression, its free speech. Id side with flat earthers over people like you who think have a right to tell others what to think and do, and puting them in jail for having diferent opinions.
Play nice now 😂
@@1MDA If lying is free speech then calling out liars is free speech too. Can't have it both ways.
The fossil record will display what looks like rapid evolution, but what really happens is a new population moving into an area across what was a barrier. The species shows up in the record with no precursors there, but the precursor is elsewhere, unknown to you. The new species moves in where there are no natural predators, and experiences rapid growth.
Evidence? Otherwise, this is pure conjecture.
Rapid depends on the context too.
I looked up the articles about rapid evolution in this video.
They are still talking about 30.000 year timespans.
Which is rapid for an evolutionary context. But nothing like what these creationists try to accuse scientists off.
@@aidanya1336 More quote mining and misrepresentation from our friend Calvin. I would expect nothing less...
@@aidanya1336 Imagine the fossil record ten thousand years from now, just looking at the changes in demographics in North America.
That is entirely conjecture. You created a narrative, but you don’t support it with evidence.
I would love to own a wolf. Magnificent creature.
You cannot "own " a Wolf.
Do you "own " your wife and kids ?
@@martinc6987 they dont. but you get owned every time you post here 😂
Just because you feel it is "magnificent" does not mean you should "own" one.
@@martinc6987 why can't he own a wolf? Wife and kids are not wolves.
@@JesusistheonetrueGod He can own a wolf when he finds a wolf that wants to be owned.
AIG: No such thing as evolution
Also AIG: Nioah's Ark only needed a single pair of "feline kind", all the types of felines we see today developed from them
Diversity within a kind of animal is already present in the genetic material of the animal. That's not macro evolution. He literally explained it in the video but you chose to ignore it. Interesting.
Bingo!! But they will say: "All of today's felinae are already created in the "kind" on Noah's ark". Even the South and North American types, which could have never had contact with Old World types since Noah.
They also needed beavers, termites, porcupines and woodpeckers, not to mention all the other hundreds of wood eating animals and insects to live on the ark for nearly a year. I still haven't figured out how the koala's got there knowing they sleep nearly 22 hrs. a day and only eat eucalyptus leaves, but yet they traveled from Australia to the middle east and back.
Calvin Smith's answer would be: "At that time (about 4,500 years ago) all the continents were still close together, the mountains were not yet so high and the oceans not so deep."
@@Nils-gi5bv The continental drift is less than an inch a year, which would mean in 4,500 years, the continents should all be no more than 375 feet from each other. I guess that's why the call the ocean between the US and the UK "across the pond" lol
However long a video would be with a full baraminology of ALL created animal kinds, I would watch it!
12 hours? Bring it!
I don't mind!
Also creationists: all these different animal species around the Earth came from a couple thousand kinds.
You guys believe in Ultra Rapid Evolution, but also claim that Rapid Evolution is not a thing? That's hilarious.
The irony is amazing. These people don’t know what to think
Good job demonstrating the confusion of terms the video talked about. Truly top-notch comprehension.
@@IslandUsurper no, there’s no lapse in comprehension going on here. Creationists are always confusing terms, making terms up, or straight up redefining them to suit their purpose.
Or perhaps you’d care to clarify these terms?
I don’t think you will, because you don’t know what you’re talking about, like all science deniers.
@@IslandUsurper Only creationists are confused about terms usually. They make up their own terms, instead of using scientific terms.
@@katamas832 What, then, is "evolution"? And "Ultra Rapid Evolution"? Be specific. I predict your definition for your comment regarding what creationists believe in does not match the one in the video title that evolutionists believe in.
Genuine question for creationists
Considering how your apologists never adress evolution, but adress either a version of evolution that's not the scientific one, but a lie they made up, or adress stuff that has nothing to do with evolution in the first place, like the formation of life or even the universe, pretending it's about evolution,
Is there any point where you start doubting the honesty of those apologists?
Well mostly I would say that apologists on average have no or little knowledge on evolutionary theory nor any particular branch of science. Most apologists argue from moral and ethical grounds.( With personal experience and "easy" talking points) Thus I listen to scientists for science and philosophical teachers for philosophy. That said, life from non-life and the origin of the universe are both important to a purely naturalistic view of the universe.
It is ridiculous to assume that any one person knows enough about a topic as complex as this to perfectly present their points and avoid making false or inaccurate statements about the other sides position, thus I pool what I find reasonable and sound and try to find and clarify inconsistent points.
Find my errors and I will attempt to correct them.
If you look you can find very accomplished scientists who have big problems with the theory of evolution.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Like who?
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Name them and their scientific fields. I bet those "scientists" have nothing to do witn anything like biology, biochemistry, or similar fields, right? 😀And they work for frauds like AiG or "discovery" institute.
"Genuine question for creationists..." - proceeds to strawman and demean creationists. Go gaslight somewhere else Mr 'Genuine'...
If all life existed simultaneously at the time of Noah’s global flood as claimed, why aren’t there remains of all “kinds” of life (even for a short time after the flood) in geology since that time???
Why do we only discover remains of certain “kinds” in certain layers (sedimentary, volcanic, ice, meteroic layers etc), never all “kinds” mixed together even though they supposedly lived in the same places and died in the same flood???
Why is there tree ring and ice layer dating evidence far older than biblical creation???
Why is there no remains of all “kinds” of life (and their foods) from distant islands and continents around where Noah’s ark settled - or anywhere in between there and their sole known origin/current location???
Why do plants, fungi and animals (not qualifying as ark creatures or their foods) exist if all destroyed by god in the flood???
If Noah’s ark only held a single mating “kind” of each animal, doesn’t that suggest rapid evolution to produce the variants of “kinds” we see today (including variants that are not found in earlier geology)??? Same with plants and fungi.
How did the different “kinds” of life (and their often immobile foods) from across the world (including from places then unknown) get to the ark, and return to their sole known locations after???… Noting many cannot travel far or fast, cannot swim from or back to their respective islands and continents, require different environments and foods etc etc etc
Dinosaur fossils show that they died with there heads pointing to the sky as if they were trying to stay out of the water, ND they find alot of fossils alongside mountains
So a rapid evolution after the flood is not possible.
Yeah, they always forget about that one.
@@D.B-x2s
That is evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 how so? Are you saying humans are at different stages of evolution because of the color of their skin?
@@JesusistheonetrueGod
Good heavens. Where did that come from? Why are you looking for excuses to hate people? No biologist would say that, so keep your racism imaginings to yourself.
Adaptation is evolution. And everything has been evolving for exactly the same amount of time.
@@jockyoung4491Evolutionary theory has propelled a lot of racism. Probably more than anything else.
VERY valuable presentation, THANKS a lot!
Only if you want to take health care and other advances in science back 300 yrs.
@@nathancook2852 men of Christian face like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday world They looked for natural laws in the universe as they understood. God is the great lawgiver; he made moral laws to keep life from being chaotic and physical laws to keep the universe from being chaotic. as they knew they were created in the image of God, they could find the universe intelligible. The evolutionist has no such prospects; as they do not believe in and intelligent creator, they see the universe as being without cause, without purpose, with no mind behind it, no rationality. Therefore, the evolutionist must acknowledge that is they are product of that universe. Their brain is unplanned, unguided and irrational, and therefore your suspect in anything approaching logic, reason critical thinking. Others of the Christian faith who have added to science and philosophy:
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1 543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1 650) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947)
Without all these, science will be set back considerably more than “300 years”.
Only valuable to science deniers maybe
@@leroyjenkins3744 Your comment has no argument, just shows that you think you are the smart one.
@@JoergBthat’s bold coming from someone without an argument too lol
If all current animals evolved from the animals on Noah's ark evolution isn't just rapid. It's supercharged.
Its silly how people criticize this man, and yet believe in their own imagination. Namely, evolutionists that believe that "whenever the time is right"
Or
"After enough time and chance"
Umm? So basically a circular argument? Really?
I thought science was about finding the specific answers to specufic questions. And not being dogmatic about something broad and unproveable
There is nothing circular in the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Nothing.
Your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.
@@taylorthetunafish5737 Another ad hominem. Can you make an argument without just objecting your bias?
I do grasp science. And science doesn't prove the theory of evolution unless you mold logic to fit it that way.
Please don't make arguments attempt to gaslight such as: your inability to grasp science isn't an argument against it"
First off you failed to prove I have an inability to grasp science.
And second of all you failed to prove that it's not a valid argument.
@@Jraethyme I would say that if you claim to "grasp science" yet reject evolutionary biology, then whatever you've grasped probably isn't science.
The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming!
@@Jraethyme All of biology is based on the fact that evolution occurs. The entire field is based on evolution occurring. Medical and pharmaceutical research is as well. They would break down completely if evolution did not occur. Believe whatever you want about a god, but stop spreading scientific falsehoods and scientific ignorance. It holds the world back.
Evolution is change and change is a big problem for creationists
who have a man made book as their guide instead of the real world that surrounds them every day of their lives.
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist)
In short: no tree of life, no evolution because there is no evidence.
@@denvan3143in short, another Gould quote. A man who supported evolution but not gradualism.
Nice try though, a-whipe
@@denvan3143
I met Gould. My brother worked in his lab. You have no idea how annoyed he would get when creationsts (he called them munchkins) used his words to mean something different than obviously intended. Gould was right, but that obviously does not mean there is no evidence for evolution. That would be a stupid conclusion.
@@denvan3143 Gould stated creationists who quote-mined him were either stupid or deliberately dishonest. Which are you?
@@jockyoung4491 I expressed no conclusions, I only quoted the man. If you resent my doing so it is on the basis of your personal bigotry; the root of your resentment is that from the time the statement was made to the present the situation has not changed. In fact, from Darwin’s first presentation of his theory to the present 160 years have passed in which the evidence has not been forthcoming. I am not responsible for your discontent over the situation or the annoyance of Gould. Phylogeny has proven to be a failure in this regard; don’t blame me.
All I know is when I read scientific periodicals or research documents of evolution, the documents are still peppered with words and terms such as "we assume...", "...probably...", "maybe...", "we postulate...", "it is believed that...", "given time..." ...etc... ..This is not to say that science won't figure it out with continued research.
.
On the other hand, it's difficult to believe that some higher intelligent "God" just commanded everything into existence.
.
Honestly, I don't think anyone really knows how, when, or why.
Time is the hero of everything.
I love your videos, you have such an incredible way of intelligently explain what some of us already believe. I have questioned the idea of evolution right from day 1. I have always thought the scientific explanation for fossils was fishy as well it just didn't seem logical.
Calvin doesn't intelligently explain anything. He misrepresents, quote mines, and more often than not just flat out lies.
Calvin likes to make up definitions of words to make it seem like he knows more than actual biologists. He is a con man
@@leroyjenkins3744 your obsession with Calvin is disturbing.
So many personal attacks yet no offers of evidence, examples or specific quotes? Why is that?
@@denvan3143my obsession? I see you here every video I watch lol
Thank you, Calvin, for another presentation that is very informative and enlightening! May GOD continue to bless you in your endevours to keep us aware of the beauty of GOD's Creation!!!
But if the few "kinds" on the ark transformed into the multitude of types that exist today within only about 4,500 years, is that not evolution?
You mean misinformative. This is as always anti-science religious propaganda.
Lies, quote mines, and misrepresentation of evidence. And you bought it hook, line, and sinker.
At about 3 minutes, the term "biblical creationists" is conflated with "young earth creationists". John H Walton is a biblical creationist through and through, yet he comes down fairly neutral regarding evolution, while differing vastly on some of the ways biblical terms are meant, when compared to how YEC understand those terms.
"yet he comes down fairly neutral regarding evolution" - I can also accept this kind of evolution: "Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution." (Wikipedia)
Anyone can see that, but it's not evolution generating new life forms. It doesn't claim that new genera or new life forms appear from the existing species. Scientists have observed only intraspecific (within species) variation. This variation is called "evolutionary process" by the desperate Darwinists.
@@jounisuninen yes,-ists try to conflate in specific variation with evolution, then attempt to move the goalpost to claim that this is proof of origin of different kinds of life forms, while ignoring the fact, the fossil evidence does not support any such claim.
@@denvan3143
No single fact is proof of evolution by itself. It is the enture body of evidence thta makes it obvious.
And the fossil record shows a myriad of intermediate forms.
No, the fossil record does not show a myriad of intermediate forms. You have been shown singular examples like archeopteryx and tiktaalik and told these are in immediate forms. But in Darwin‘s time there were no transitional forms, no small continual forms that progressed from one kind of animal to another; in short, there are no ancestral examples for the two above mentioned specimens nor is there fossil evidence that these are the ancestral forms of any subsequent animals. If you claim otherwise cite the phylogeny for any of them.
@@jockyoung4491 so setting aside what you punitively State as an accumulation of evidence, the comprises proof and addressing the Marie of intermediate forms“ I invite you to cite a phylogeny For any of the lifeforms, you pause it transformed into another life form. You won’t succeed; no such exist. Sans evidence, evolution is not science, it is a belief system and a comfort mechanism. You need not require evidence to believe it because it is a matter of faith and it provides you with comfort because it makes you feel enlightened to say that you believe it.
As an agnostic, I abandoned evolution as being bankrupt of evidence. And as an agnostic, I went in search to see if they’re actually is a god is the Bible says. There is.
Evolution happens every generation, but major changes take more time.
Please be specific what you mean by the term evolution in this context and provide examples. I have physical traits in common with my parents, but they’re also differences; that does not constitute evolution, it is merely an expression of revenant DNA.
@@denvan3143 It wold still be evolution, which is a chage in the heritable characteristics in a biological population.
@@denvan3143
Biological evolution is a change in gene frequencies. It happens every generation. It HAS to.
@@denvan3143
Biological evolution is a change in gene frequencies. It happens every generation. It HAS to.
@@jockyoung4491 You are confusing, recumbent DNA in the reproductive process with genetic mutation. 23 chromosomes from your mother and 23 chromosomes from your father, combine to create a new, unique human being; if you have brothers or sisters, you will all have a family resemblance, but each will be different - unless twins are involved, of course. This is not evolution, you do not “evolve” from your parents. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information but it is incorrect. Recon revenant DNA is not rapid evolution, rapid evolution is not Darwin’s descent with modification.
I believe in evolution because certain animals are only located at one spot
You totally missed the whole point of this video
I didn’t even watch the hole video,I just comment about evolution
@@eckobrown7902 that explains it
@@stillraven9415 yup 👍🏻
So I have a question for you, so because a type of animal is in one place in the world that proves evolution? Which means you must believe that an equal amount of every single type of animal should be everywhere on earth if you’re a creationist. So I don’t get how your theory even makes any sense.
What would animals who thrive in hot environments do in a cold environment? Because you’re saying that creationism means all animals must be equally spaced out on the entire planet.
You commenting on a video that you didn’t even watch, tells me that you are arguing not because you have proof that you wish people seeking the truth would watch. Nor do you want to consider any evidence that you don’t have.
So you must know everything and everyone else knows nothing new that you don’t already know. Which equals arrogance. I hope you can one day you can understand that no one person on earth knows everything.
May my Creator bless you and your family and your children’s children for a thousand generations. May His love bring you peace, protection and happiness.
This guy is able to lie with dry eyes at a constant pace, never witnessed before, evolved quickly into a very slick creature
Dumb, delusion and dishonesty... the holy trinity of apologetics
Specifically what is dishonest? Why do you atheists just cast general insults but never specifically refute anything? So specifically, what did he get wrong and what is your evidence to back up that it is wrong?
@@rl7012 "you atheists just cast general insults and never refute anything"... well well well if there ever was a pot calling the kettle black you just nailed it... congratulations self foot shooter oh great one
Wow, you're all over the creationist's feed just 'Qakking' away
@@Loading....99.99 Um... ok. Bizarro
@@DuXQaK there weren’t any general insults casted at you and the refutation was the pointing out that you didn’t provide any support for your stance.. maybe you should look up what “pot calling the kettle black “ means. BUT ONLY after giving an answer, what was dishonest about this video?
None of the kinds are named in the bible. So who decided that it sits at the family level of taxonomy?
And they claim they dont add to scripture.
@1MDA indeed. Its all about making the evidence fit the bill.
There is no possible way you could know the answer that question - unless you actually watch the video. Carl Linneus is the father of modern taxonomy. He found the biblical description of “kinds“ was not all inclusive so he said about to supplement it. If you don’t like it, you are free to make up your own tax on me and attempt to publish papers on the subject.
@@1MDA well, you’ll never know if they added to scripture or not unless you actually read the Bible - is that going to happen anytime soon? I have read one and a half books every week for the past 30 years; that’s in excessive 2000 books on every subject aside from the Bible. When you get up to 500 books come back and perhaps we can have a conversation about Scriptures or whatever you would like to discuss.
@@denvan3143 bully for you
It all boils down to the basics of what is necessary for the evolution of purely new lifeforms, that is fundamentally new proteins, new moleculer constucts that adds up to new functions(that is purely new information). If this doesn't happen it'll be quite hard to call it evolution. If you're just working off of the normal gene pool then its still basically the same kind of animal.
"If you're just working off of the normal gene pool then its still basically the same kind of animal."
For many generations, yes. Eventually it becomes increasingly different. That's inevitable.
@@jockyoung4491 no it's not, for organisms to develop and gain new abilities you need fundamentally new information, just reshuffling the old ones won't do. You need new proteins to build the new structures new fundamental rearrangement of body plans etc. It's really really hard to get or evolve a protein from random trial and error because proteins have a functional integrity that cannot be easily bridged, when you change a protein to a certain degree you loose function and when that happens it's quite impossible to get anything meaningful.
@@ikemiracle4841 We get new genetic information from new random nucleotides and new codon combinations which occur during reproduction with variations. These produce new proteins (or new modified versions of existing proteins) and new features. Science has known that for decades but creationists just can't seem to grasp reality.
@@sciencerules2825 it would be very difficult to convince you but try to understand what it means for something to be literally random. Proteins and other organic structures have an informational requirement in order to work, without the adequate amount of information you can't make anything useful for natural selection to preserve and maintain, proteins are not just made from random codons but ones that are arranged in such a way when read, they give the right structure of the protein or enzyme if you do the simple maths on how long and how probable it is to have these structures through pure trial and error you would be totally weakend. It doesn't just work 😞
I'll ask you this question and I'm hoping for an answer, do you think that most random mutations would lead to a benefit or function or the production of new protein (as isolated and complex as they are)? OR do you think that most mutations are neither beneficial or functional. If you picked the later option then to what degree in terms of probability, please quantify i.e 1/10^x or in any way you find fit. If you picked the first please state it clearly.
@@ikemiracle4841 You obviously have zero understanding of genetics. You're blithering nonsense about "information" and "probabilities" you got for some crackpot creationist website. If your goal was to show everyone how little you know about actual biology you've succeeded admirably.
Er, isn't it _creationists_ who need to worry about "rapid evolution" not being true? They're the ones who believe all animals descended from the original "kinds" on Noah's Ark. If that isn't rapid evolution, what is?
Bingo! Only 4.500 years!
Calvin explains this in the video. You may not agree with him, but his point was that the various types of dogs, cats, etc. arise from reshuffling the genetic code already present in the parents. Just like one pair of human parents can have children that look significantly different from each other, the offspring of animals also experience genetic reshuffling. Mutations exist, and they do cause changes. But generally speaking, mutations are either neutral or bad. And mutations aren't the reason that there are so many different types of dogs. Just like the diversity in human appearance isn't due to mutations. Reshuffling genetics of parents can result in an incredible array of different possibilities.
@strategywizard It's not that I disagree with him: he's _wrong,_ plain and simple. The changes required for different species are impossible without mutations. And no, they're not always neutral or deleterious.
@@strategywizard Yes, children of the same parents can be very different. But they still only contain a random selection of information that the parents have inherited from the grandparents. These can be mixed in many ways, this is called recombination. However, there is no possibility beyond this offer. However, all such different children are children of this pair of parents. They are not new types!
There is no biological mechanism as you imagine it.
@@strategywizard _arise from reshuffling the genetic code already present in the parents_ That nonsense was disproven decades ago. We've sequenced the genomes of ancient cats and dogs from specimens going back over 10,000 years. None of those genomes show any sign of containing all the genetic variations seen in extant dogs and cats. This is just one more made-up-on-the-spot lie from the creationist camp.
I debunk all evolutionists in less than 5 min.✝️
Seeing as how "evolutionist" is not a type of person, no, you can't. Also, you can not debunk evolution, period, given all the time in the world.
I’m sure, in your head, you believe that you can.
@@nathancook2852 evolution can't happen,. Are you a 1st grader?
@@stevenbatke2475 Anyone with a head knows evolution is impossible..duh
@@YECBIB cool. When will you debunk evolution in 5 min? In another 2-3 hours?
Both the London Underground mosquitoes and the armored freshwater stickleback among others strongly disagree and are excellent examples of rapid evolution.
You can apply the word “evolution” if you wish as a synonym for change, but the change is not because of additional biological instructions being added to the mosquitoes in the fish, but rather a change induced by environmental that activate portions of the genome, which had been inactive. An example is E. coli, which, when immersed in matrix of citrace which is incapable of metabolizing well after several generations become able to do so because an inactive gene becomes activated to permit dysfunction. The biological instructions were pre-programmed into the genome; it cannot be a process of evolution because evolution can’t anticipate future needs. The Creator did plan for contingencies and variations of environment. This is contingency programming; if you were familiar with computer programming, this will be familiar, otherwise it may be lost on you.
@@denvan3143 Haha. You're describing evolution while desperately trying to circumvent it. Environmental factors can influence gene expression and activate certain dormant traits. This is part of how evolution works. Furthermore, the claim that evolution cannot anticipate ''future needs'' is a misunderstanding of how evolutionary processes work. Evolution does not have foresight rather, it operates through the cumulative effects of random variation and natural selection actng on populations over generations. Traits that provide a reproductive advantage in a particular environment tend to become more common over time, regardless of whether they were "anticipated" by some external agent. Also, your argument depends on religious belief that we cannot corroborate here in this reality and a false computer analogy, no doubt copy+pasted from some creationist website.
@@denvan3143
Biological evolution does not require mutation in the SHORT term, because genetic variation is already present (although that variation obviously came from past mutations). But selection can deplenish that variation fairly quickly, so to evolve very FAR requires new mutation, which fortunately happens all the time.
@@denvan3143 Oh look, someone squeezed Doosh Van's head and from his mouth gushed another steaming brown stream of creationist "science" 😄
Except they are just examples of speciation which is not evolution which is what the entire video demonstrates! : )
So Ken Ham's Hyper Evolution theory about all the animals evolving within 2.000 years after the Ark is wrong then.
Good to know.
They like to talk out of both sides of their mouth.
I would say Ken Ham is an dniot, but I would be rightly accused of ad hominem, so I will let you decide for yourself
2000 years ago is the era of the Roman Empire and the time in which Jesus walked in the Earth. I think your watch is running slow. 😄
@@nathancook2852 you’re right; evolutionist first say that evolution takes hundreds of millions of years, then they say that evolution can happen within the span of human existence, but, whoops, not that fast. Pick a lane.
@@denvan3143 I think Ken Ham's watch stopped running years ago.
Brilliant as always.
It took man 40,000 years to change wolves into the dogs of today. Perhaps you might notice the problem with that timeline?
@@Ottawa411 If it really took that long, then explain to us how there are 500 dog breeds in less 500 years.
@@denatajasper That is irrelevant, if it is even true. The fact remains that it took that long.
The only reason why you would need a concept like "baramin" is if you do not believe that God could have miraculously fitted all existing species of breathing land animals on the Ark. This is a theological issue, not a scientific one.
Mr. Smith's acceptance of the modern "baramin" or "created kind" terminology shows that his ideas have evolved from past dogmas on this topic. His religious forebears used to believe that God had created all individual species as they were, and the word "min" or "kind" did not refer to the "family" level at all, but to the species level. You can easily verify this for yourself by looking at old paintings of the animals that went into the Ark; you will see both lions and tigers, donkeys and horses, foxes and wolves waiting in line.
As science is what is observable and evolution is not observable in the wild, in the laboratory or in the fossil record it is a belief system and not science. Yours is a poor position from which to critique others.
Origin of species is not observed, divergence of species is. Darwin observed the ladder, as the breeders of domestic animals exploited this facet of biology to breed new phenotypes. Darwin mistakenly based his idea of evolution on the notion that divergence of species or species ation could lead to different families of animals, as different as cats and dogs. Such as not the case, no such thing has ever been discovered in the fossil record.
@@denvan3143 You said: _" As science is what is observable and evolution is not observable in the wild, in the laboratory or in the fossil record it is a belief system and not science."_
The definition of evolution is "the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." This has been observed numerous times. You may call it "adaptation" or "divergence of species", but it is evolution in accordance with its definition.
You said: _"Origin of species is not observed, divergence of species is."_
If you are of the opinion that "divergence of species" is observed, then you admit that evolution is observed in accordance with its definition.
If you don't agree that we can draw rational conclusions about the past based on what we observe in the present, you are opposed to all of the natural sciences.
You said: _"Darwin observed the ladder, as the breeders of domestic animals exploited this facet of biology to breed new phenotypes."_
I don't know what you mean by "the ladder", but yeah, Darwin observed artificial selection and that informed his ideas about natural selection. I don't see what the problem is.
You said: _"Darwin mistakenly based his idea of evolution on the notion that divergence of species or species ation could lead to different families of animals, as different as cats and dogs."_
I am not sure what you mean by "different families of animals". You seem to agree that divergence can lead to different species, so why would you not agree that species could diverge further and further until they had become so different from each other that a new classification should be introduced? That seems illogical to me.
You said: _"Such as not the case, no such thing has ever been discovered in the fossil record."_
The fossil record is notoriously patchy, so if you require complete lineages to be found, you will be disappointed. The remarkable thing about the fossil record however is that what we do find invariably fits with the bigger picture. No Pre-Cambrian bunnies yet!
The click bait photo saying its all a lie pretty much sums up this video
If you believe it to be Clickbait, then , as you have commented here you have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. Your remark expresses your insecurity; if you didn’t care, you wouldn’t comment. Evidently, Fear Of Missing Out is your drug of choice.
@@denvan3143 I love how you all know what others are thinking. I guess your mythical god gave you that ability too. We just call out science deniers. Don't go thinking you all are that special. I call out flat earthers too.
@@nathancook2852 it’s not a matter of mind reading; your attitude is evident and what you write. You come to videos like this because of the fear of missing out, then become angry because you don’t like what you hear. Your anger is evident in what you write and the way you write it, and the basis of that anger is fear.
@@denvan3143 look at Doosh Van trying to defend Calvin's anti-science idiocy and egregious lies. Too funny!
So the evolutionist want to tell me that the whale can turn into a dog ?
No? What about evolution is confusing you?
Technically yes they can. With enough time and chance. But the evolutionists will claim they are being misrepresented when they know the logic is silly
@@Jraethyme "Technically yes they can"
LOL.
@@LordMathious "What about evolution is confusing you?" Please do explain the symbiotic relationship of the living kind. Start with the blood. Go...
@marcj3682 What does the symbiotic relationship of the living kind', mean? This isn't a scientific term, so you'll need to clarify so I can answer you.
@5:15: no, it doesn't 'beg the question' Begging the question is arguing in a circle, assuming the truth of what you seek to prove. I think he means 'raises the question'.
"operational science"? Surely you mean empirical science? No one uses the term 'operational' for science.
If you used regular English you might have more credibility.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. The title is a red herring. And I hate to break it to ya, Calvin, but evolution is supported by over a century and a half of empirical evidence. No version of any religion on earth can say that. At least, not honestly... You really are blatant in your Commandment breaking.
yeah--the us against them mentality in the very title is rather detrimental to their position. i've never seen a biology book that goes out of its way to refute religion
@@AMC2283
It is Calvin's method. It is INTENDED to be offensive.
@@jockyoung4491 which is what you’d expect from someone who knows their position is weak
@@jockyoung4491 his style is polemic, which is inherently neither good nor bad, but simply a mechanism to promote dialogue. If you perceive it as offensive, it may be because you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.
All that century and a half of "evidence" has been disproven and the story of the bible has 6000 years of never disproven evidence.
Dogs came from wolves through man's intervention. Other dog breeds came about from man's intervention. We end up with little wolves in our homes, well some bigger than others. We love our little wolves in our homes. Why do we call them dogs? They are still just wolves. Coyoteys are in there, too. It's just a hypothetical question or maybe phylosophical.
The article Calvin showed was called "Wolf to woof" That's a subtle pun, wolves don't bark, most dogs (except some hounds) do. Domestic dogs and wolves are separate species now,
Yes. That's evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 as is explained in the video, rapid evolution is subdivision within a text Aime Family; dogs and wolves are in the canine family and different species, but neither developed from a simpler life form; that would require additional biological instructions in the DNA. Evolutionist have no answer to the question of the biological instructions in DNA other than to say “it just happened“ or “it’s just chemistry“, which is silliness that borders on believing in magic.
@@denvan3143 So, evolution. Just because you call it something else doesn't mean scientists are wrong.
@@nathancook2852 not merely what it is called but the definition. Evolution as defined as one kind of living organism, transforming overtime into another kind of organism is not observed in nature, it is not observed in the fossil record, and it is not demonstrated in laboratory experiments. it is 1864 book on evolution. Charles Darwin put forward this theory that animals could transform over time into completely different kinds of animals, but in the 160 years since the evidence to support that theory has never been found.
As to scientist, not being wrong: scientist are wrong all the time, they gonna do huge heated debates and nearly into hockey fights and agreements over their pet theories. scientists are just guys working for a paycheck, they are not selfless priests.
17:16 i dont understand why you cant imagine that you repeat this proccess enough times, you get something new? repeat it over and over and over again and you'll get widly different forms.
and btw, all genetic information is new information. any change, gives new information, even if that information gets rid of traits.
Where do the biological instructions in DNA originate? If you tell me, your shoes got scuffed up, that indicates a change in issues, but it does not explain how your shoes came into existence.
You could sit at a computer at the prompt screen and press keys at random; that is information of a sword. I could sit at the same screen, prompt, and write instructions that would execute a program. That is a set of instructions as opposed to random characters on the screen.
For lizard to become a bird where require a massive new set of instructions that direct the structure, function and metabolism of the wings, feathers and the unique lung structure of a bird. That’s not the result of random genetic mutation.
@denvan3143 thats abiogenesis, which is not related to darwin evolution
but also, this idea that changing DNA randomly doesnt give new information is just wrong. any change is new information. DNA is not code nor a language, it is its own thing. you have strings of codans that come in 3 pairs, and all pairs can make something, even if its nonsense. you take ATA and take it to ATC or whatever, it becomes a new protein. new proteins can have new shapes, make new functions, etc. for example, fur and feathers are the same kind of protein shaped differently. for a lizard to become a bird, it can take either massive changes really fast (no biologist claims this) or it was slow changes over time. therapods began to grow plumage to stay warm, then glide from tree to tree, then fly on their own. each step moves slower to be better, the lungs slowly change, the bones slowly get more hollow, etc. the point between a lizard (therapode specifically) becoming a bird can't be scientifically pinpointed. i assume you believe in micro evolution as most creationists do, so im wondering wjy that just cant keep going into macro
@@denvan3143”lizard changing into a bird,” is exactly why you people don’t get laughed at.
You’re right. I hate creationists. Plain and simple. They are some of the worst, most intellectually bankrupt people on this plant. No different from the Muslim creationists who use the exact same arguments to prove Allah is real.
There’s a reason you people are called the Christian taliban.
@@Bomtombadi1 well, at least you admit you’re a bigot; that’s refreshing honesty from an evolutionist. But men are the Christian faith like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday were fundamental to modern science; from their knowledge of the Bible, they knew that God is the great lawgiver, who made moral laws so life would not be chaotic and physical laws so the universe would not be chaotic. That is why we call them “laws of nature“” laws of science”. These men understood from the Bible that they are made in the image of their creator, and for that reason can find the universe intelligible. Evolutionist do not believe in the creator and believe somehow there is order in the universe, although it is a result of mindless, unguided, and irrational process. Evolutionist, who have to believe that their brain is a product of that blind, unguided, irrational process, still believe that somehow they will find the universe intelligible. It is one of the myriad contradictions evolutionists struggle with. Others of the Christian faith who have added to science and philosophy:
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1 543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1 650) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947)
“There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority].” Galatians 3:28
you hate people, Christianity teaches us to love people.
“Early Christians liberate slaves at their own expense. In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.”
In the 1800s 90% of slaves sold by black slave kings went to the Muslim market; your problem is with them. Christians are taught to love, who taught you to hate?
Some of those who comment here both subscribe and (militantly) jump to be first ones appearing to this channel's videos attacking the narrator on almost every video. I've never seen a more ridiculous bunch of keyboard warriors that have nothing better to do in life than hate those who believe in the God of the bible. To those I'm speaking of, quit the hating and the denial that you are hating and get a life.
I've seen no one here show any hatred to those who believe in God. The problem is with people like Calvin who bare-faced lie about scientific knowledge to push their beliefs. That's quite a bit different, don't you agree?
@@sciencerules2825 What exactly do you mean by Calvin cherry picking his info? First, prove it. Next, if you can't then don't make false claims that stem from hate towards the guy.
@@NoiTuLovE64 If you haven't see Calvin lying about and misrepresenting evolutionary science in virtually every video he posts you are either scientifically illiterate or haven't been watching, or both.
So you don't suppose that Calvin's blatant atheist-baiting titles have anything to do with the speed at which he gets rebuttals from atheists?
He knows very well what he's doing, and you should recognise it too.
@@MrReasonabubbleI like how rebuttals and admittedly atheist baiting means hatred to you.
Don't you believe that all the species evolved from a few types on the ark in a couple thousand years? I would call that rapid.
Except as explained in the video- speciation isn't evolution... : )
@@calvinsmith7575 You all just like to change the names of things you don't like/agree with. It is certainly evolution.
@@calvinsmith7575
Obviously speciation is evolution. Get an education.
@@jockyoung4491 Obviously speciation isnot evolution. Get an education. : )
But its not evolution. How hard is that concept? Speciation doesn't equal evolution...period....
Funny. Creationists need ultra-rapid evolution for explaining the Noah´s arch story but deny cases of rapid evolution reported in scientific papers.
Calvin Smith again fails to get even one thing right.
If it wasn't for fallacious logic creationists wouldn't have any logic at all. 🙂
"Creationists need ultra-rapid evolution for explaining the Noah´s arch story ..." - Not true however. You are addled by the evolution theory. Listen carefully what Calvin tells.
Calvin talks of speciation. Speciation has nothing to do with the fallacious "evolution". Speciation is a quick process. Evolutionists just can't distinguish speciation from evolution. Speciation is reality, evolution is a fairy tale for ignorant evolutionists.
Speciation generates subspecies through gene loss, not through new genes. Less fit individuals get culled from population and they take their genes with them. When part of genes are lost from population, other genes become dominant and superficial changes happen. There are no new genes running around to be picked and used for evolution i.e. to produce the process of a taxonomic species transforming to a new taxonomic genus, family, order ... i.e. to evolution. No such evolution process has ever been scientifically proven!
Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population. Natural selection (in fact natural elimination!) however delivers nothing, it just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners because the less fit are dead or become too rare. This means that on the population level every individual's genome gets specialized i.e. impoverished. This is adaptation.
It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the specialized population suffers and goes extinct. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly.
@@jounisuninen _Speciation is reality,_ Speciation is also macroevolution by definition. Thanks for confirming macroevolution is reality. 😊
@@jounisuninen _Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population_
Oh, you mean like this paper in _Science_ documents?
*Real-time evolution of new genes by innovation, amplification, and divergence*
@@samburns3329 you believe in the origination of new biological instructions in living organisms by a natural, blind mechanism? Great: I’m selling shears in my new perpetual motion machine; you don’t want to miss out. 😄
PS _Science_ used to be a reputable magazine, it went the way of woke.
I beg to differ because it's demonstrable repeatedly but you need to ignore that because it doesn't make your case!
"Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening."
@@statutesofthelord Yes it has, if you think that then you clearly do not understand what evolution is, we have evidence annually of flu, covid, cold evolving constantly hence our immune systems do not recognise them, we have been able to demonstrate in a lab how to make a single celled organism spontaneously evolve into a multi celled organism, by definition evidence of evolution, sorry but this ideology the church pushes is misinformation, no I cant put a cow in a lab and turn it into a sheep, evolution never claimed that and you have to ignore time itself to believe evolution does not exist.
It is the strongest theory ever in science, it is backed up by several non related fields of science, it is observable, demonstrable and provable now because we can unravel the genetic code of any DNA sample, we can literally see the evidence in chemical bonds and how they relate to the evolutional tree and its branches.
Just sitting there claiming i'm wrong shows you ignorance, we have been manipulating evolution for thousands of yrs in fruit and cattle etc we can show it in real time with fruit flies by triggering evolutionary cursors, but you won't know any of this because you are denying it without actually understanding the subject due to your ideology, that is sad and exposes your indoctrination.
@@statutesofthelord How many transitional fossils do you need?
A god hasn't been observed doing anything.
"demonstrable repeatedly "
LOL.
@@marcj3682 I love an ignorant reply, it shows me why you are clueless in your own opinion.
4:32 I was wondering for a while, apparently there's this "corruption" argument so after 1500 years of selective pressures at least the probability wouldn't be high that there's a pair of animals having all the alleles (how big would the genome even need to be?) to bring forth all that is today
Regarding your miscommunication point: maybe it would be good to introduce your video with what evolution is and what you mean when you say it (yeah, it's clear you mean large changes but some, no many people I'd say don't know that your last example where the genes already existed is also a form of evolution)
You still fight against feathers? What about the old Zhenyuanlong? Also "just collagen (which would mean the bird fossil feathers are not feathers either)? Isn't a common argument common design = common designer? Why couldn't he have put feathers on dinosaurs? Birds still have scales after all
Yes, things are impossible if they don’t agree with your opinion.
@@denvan3143 Things are impossible when the physical evidence shows they were impossible, like a literal Noah's Flood / Noah's Ark.
@@denvan3143there you are! You ran away and now I see you’re just projecting?
@@samburns3329 The fossils of sea creatures are found at the tops of mountains. The flood is how they got there. The Bible states that prior to the flood, the waters were gathered together in one place and the dry land.; Geologist have determined there is once a single giant supercontinent and one single ocean: evidence supports the Bible.
The Bible states the mountain is with thrust up, and the values were cast down; plate tectonics shows us that collision zones produce mountain ranges and subduction zones produce, deep, rips and values: evidence supports the Bible.
The Bible states in beginning God created all living things; the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of life forms in the fossil record with no ancestral forms, which would be necessary for evolution to be true: evidence supports the Bible.
The Bible states that as sin enter the world rebellion death came with it; the fossil record shows the extinction of more than 90% of all creatures that ever lived on the earth: science confirms the Bible.
in 1864 Charles Darwin predicted that the fossils necessary to confirm his theory of evolution would be found shortly; nearly two centuries later, the evidence has not been found.
There is corruption. The human genome has been mapped and it has been found that the human race is degenerating at a rate between 1% and 2% per generation. Buy some estimates the human race may be extinct in 6000 years.
Still dont know what a "kind" is. Heard you mention "family" and "genus". Which is it?
None of the above. "Kind" is not a scientific term. It is a general term that can apply to ANY categories.
And because it is unbiological and therefore unclear, it is often used by one of the discussion sites to keep all possibilities open and not really have to take a stand. Guess which side!
350 the barimen created kind is about the family level
In Leviticus 11:13 Kind is used in a way scientists would call "species." So once again, Calvin's claim for "family" is wrong.
@@nathancook2852 scientist differ quite a bit on how they define “species” and the fastest way to promote a barrow among them is to toss that subject into the conversation. “Species” is up for grabs, and the closest analogy is really “family”, i.e., the family of mammals, birds, insects, plants, et al. Cats reproduce as cats within the feline family, dogs reproduce as dogs within the canine family, birds as birds, etc.
WTF
You arbitrarily chose Family as the classification level for Baramin. You're gonna have to show me how that's objectively true. No non-christian would be swayed by this argument.
God's word is a fountain of success and truth. Darwin's theory is a dumpster fire of consistent failure.
@@vantagepoint9270 the Bible doesn't say that all snakes talk, it says that one snake talked. That event is not something we would be able to verify through the scientific method. We do know that people can communicate with animals and there are even animals who can talk (parrots). You said snakes are consistent with evolution? Nope. No scientist has observed the transition of a snake to a non-snake. All we actually can observe is that snakes always produce more snakes just like Genesis 1 says God designed them to. Please accept observable science and documented history; receive Christ.
@@vantagepoint9270 "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist)
So, no: scientists are not agreed regarding evidence for evolution. They agreed there is no evidence.
@@denvan3143
That is not what the quote says. Why are you lying?
And that's why one's religious book with dozens of translations and countless interpretations whereas the other is a scientific theory with global scientific support and a variety of applications?
AIG: we believe in micro evolution and we believe that kinds rapidly speciated after a world wide flood
Also AIG: EVOLUTION CANT POSSIBLY HAPPEN NOT EVEN RAPIDLY
A Question For Atheists:
(who believe in Evolution)
Considering the concept of confusion was mentioned in the video...
Perhaps we Christians are merely confused about what Evolution is...
Please define: Evolution.
Also...
Is Evolution not an explanation of the variety of life on Earth starting with possibly: Prokaryotes...
To finally: Humans and other more "complex" creatures? With organisms similar to Prokaryotes being the first life forms on Earth?
Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. 🤦
BTW hundreds of millions of Christians accepted evolution as fact, only backwarded creationists still ignore reality.
*Please define: Evolution.*
In the general sense, it's any change over time. In science, unless specified as the general definition, it is the fact that reproductive populations change genetically across many generations, and the theory that explains how this happens.
*Is Evolution not an explanation of the variety of life on Earth starting with possibly: Prokaryotes.*
That evolution happens is a fact. _How_ it happens is a mechanistic explanation of Earth's biodiversity, but that wouldn't change even if we found out creationism is true.
*To finally: Humans and other more "complex" creatures? With organisms similar to Prokaryotes being the first life forms on Earth?*
The evident evolutionary history of Earth life points as far away from YEC beliefs as is possible.
evolution is a model that describes how species change and differentiate over time. it does explain some of the natural variation we see, it does not tell us how we got from prokaryotes to complex life forms.
@@babs_babs
Thanks, I appreciate the reply.
Isn’t the real issue no afterlife if you’re just another evolved organism?
How do creationists explain ever-evolving new viruses?
Creationists cant explain anything... They can't even count to 11 without taking their shoes off
When a virus evolves into a fish, come talk to me.
@@anthonycope1662 ... What? Lol 🤣
@@anthonycope1662is evolving a single celled organism into a multiple celled organism good? Scientist did that in a lab,just by external stimuli...in 2 years...
@@logicalatheist1065 Would you consider Evolutionary Creation thru a reincarnation recycling process which explains every thing. A three dimensional thinker resolve conflicts by seeing them as Paradoxical and by adding a 3rd perspective finds a Tri - Unity that shows that duel conflicting arguments can be both right or wrong at the same time. It take Two to Tango but it takes 3 to prove and witness to Facts. Unity in Diversity takes asking important questions and then diligent seeking for answers that make a wise student of wisdom and understanding possible. Guest what I keep my shoes on and used my God given brain. Could it be both Atheist as well as Creationist need to take off both shoes and count there Blessing Moment by Moment Daily that contribute to the well being of all things including one's self. Blessing to you. AMEN
I love when people who don't understand biology, try to debunk biology lol. If evolution didnt work, we'd have figured that out a long long time ago. Same as literally all scientific theories ever, that you also have no problem accepting as fact. Your refusal to accept specific scientific theories simply because of your bronze age beliefs is quite humorous.
Evolutionist have figured out that there is no fossil evidence to support the claim of animals changing into other kinds of animals.
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist)
"I will lay it on the line-there is not
one such [transitional] fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument. (Colin Patterson ,
British palaeontologist, Natural
History Museum)
1864: Darwin publishes his book on evolution.
2024: no evidence to support evolution has been found.
To this date: evolutionist cannot explain the source of biological information in DNA, the code in all living things: there is no code without a coder.
Do you recognize all 140+ families of birds; which then result in over 2,000 species? How are the marsupials divided up? The marine mammals?
Speaking of evolution, hasn't religion evolved an awful lot, from buckets full of gods in mountains and tree's, causing thunder or stopping rain, living in clouds, sending plagues or erupting volcanos and sending earthquakes. Those angry gods that needed to be appeased with offerings or cash given to the priests. Anyone would think that if there was a god he could manage to get his story straight. But what we actually have is every tribe and its aunt with different versions of creation. What we should see is exactly the same version of creation and exactly the same commandments in every civilization from the Aztecs to the Zulus, but it would appear that the priests, left right and centre all over the globe are just making whatever fairy stories it takes to get cash out of their gullible followers. Imagine if a Nigerian prince told you that he had a place for you in a fancy afterlife hotel... And that all you had to do to gain entry was to follow his rules and pay him a small amount of cash every weekend and he would guarantee your room, oh and if you do break any of the rules, don't worry, just pay extra cash and he will still let you in.
You may give your attention to whatever god you wish, mine is focused on the god of the Bible.
The Bible states in the beginning, God created the heavens in the earth; Evan Hubbles disclosure in 1927 of the red shift demonstrated the universe is expanding, therefore had an origin: evidence supports the Bible
The Bible states God stretched out the heavens like a fabric; astronomical observations the universe is expanding more rapidly every moment: evidence confirms the Bible.
The Bible states God created all living things; the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of life forms, not a gradual chain of ancestral forms that would be necessary for evolution: evidence confirms the Bible
The Bible states the waters were gathered into one place and the dry land appeared; geologist have determined there was once a single giant supercontinent and a single ocean: evidence supports the Bible.
The Bible states the Earth hangs unsuspended in space; astronomical observations confirm the earth is held in its orbit around the sun via gravitational effect: confirms the Bible.
The Bible states that sin entered the world through man’s rebellion, and with it came death; the fossil record shows the extinction of more than 90% of all life forms that ever existed on the earth: evidence supports the Bible.
The Bible states that as sin and the world, so did corruption; the second law of thermodynamics states that the energy level of the universe is descending to a low, common level (it being understood the universe is a closed) and that comp city is degenerating into chaos: evidence confirms the Bible.
The Bible states the mountains were thrust up, and the valleys were cast down; plate tectonics demonstrates collision zones produce mountain ranges, and subduction zones produce rift and valleys: evidence supports the Bible.
The Bible states that all humans are members of the same race; DNA confirms all humans are members of the same race: evidence support supports the Bible.
The Bible states Jesus Christ was the active agent of creation; Frederick Hoyle’s discovery of finding let him to believe in a supreme being who has adjusted the laws of physics so that life is possible: evidence supports the Bible.
@@denvan3143 Not a single thing you listed actually supports a literal Bible. That was an amazing exhibition of trying to make the evidence fit your predrawn conclusions.
@@denvan3143 the bible is deliberately vague and meant to be reinterpreted, just like an astrological prediction it plays so loose with the facts anyone can 'read' whatever they want in it. You can watch the different versions of god evolve from one testament to the next and that's before you start reading texts from other religions. If you want to know the true origins of religions and gods just look at the money that's extracted and see where it goes. A god capable of creating a vast universe in a few days wouldn't need any of your cash... Though if you do need a priest to tell you every weekend not to kill or you would do so, it's probably best that you keep paying him to remind you.
@@samburns3329 actually, no: men of the Christian faith like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday we’re foundations in modern science. Having read their Bible thoroughly and with the understanding that God is the great lawgiver, who created moral laws to keep life from being chaotic and physical laws to keep the universe from being chaotic, looked for laws of nature, which is precisely why we called them “laws of nature “” laws of science”.
It’s odd that you would say I’m trying to make the evidence fit the Bible, since each of these events as I related them took place before evidence confirmed what was in the Bible. I suggest you step beyond the boundaries of your ideology and examine the findings of science and what the scripture says in an objective fashion.
While my parents attended church until I was nine years old, I had no idea who God was nor any notion of why Jesus was his son and why that was relevant. I was an agnostic who began to study the Bible in my teams because it is a significant document in world history. I also studied the claims of evolution because it also is significant, concerning the past two centuries. I found the Bible to be credible and evolution to be deficient in evidence to the point of it being irrelevant.
@@denvan3143 The one thing all of those famous scientists you named have in common is *they all kept their religious beliefs out of their scientific work.* You creationists always forget that part while trying to cram your religious beliefs into science.
_I found the Bible to be credible and evolution to be deficient in evidence_ That's a testimony to your ignorance of the scientific evidence for evolution, not a reflection on the evidence itself.
Evolution has been proved repeatedly ever since mankind took to agriculture. Domestic crops & animals have been constantly mutated by the selection of required traits.
This is exactly what nature does by continuous changes in habitat & environment over the
Millenia. The minute difference in each generation permits some individuals to survive change, while others fall prey to it, so they cannot go on to reproduce, while the lucky were able to do so.
Still the so called Noah's Ark could still not hold 1400 animal 'kinds', with all the food they would have needed to survive for a year. Then how did all these distinct species find their way to the far distant & very different habitats around the world? & why were certain types, like those of Australia, the marsupials, so confined to that island. But you have to allow for rapid evolution to permit so many different species to have come about in some 4000 years, but this is not long enough for the Millions of species that now exist. If Biblical rapid evolution were true, then new animals & plants would be popping up everywhere all the time, almost daily, one could not fail to notice. The truth is change can be fast or slow, or stop altogether if there is no incentive, but it still take ages for totally new forms to come about. Though you will say 'God' decided to stop evolution recently, to explain that this isn't happening. But your iriginal story was that 'God' made. ALL creation in one week as it is today. That negates any new species, by any means & at any rate, but you now have to deny this, as with the Impossible Flood myth, because in just cannot work. You cannot have it both ways. Humans have created new species through farming which demonstrate how evolution works & is true.
The Bible stories are just that, stories, myths dreamt up in ancient times before mankind had any real knowledge of how things actually work. Why you insist in trying to prove this impossible fantasy to be real is beyond ridiculous, it's infantile.
Leviticus chapter 11 talks about kinds and clearly means what we would call a species. Not sure why calvin thinks it means a family
They do that because everyone laughs at them for thinking all the species in the world could fit on a boat. So they claim only the general kinds were there and diversified later. Somehow they are too clueless to understand that is evolution.
I suggest you review the video. The animals taken on board the Ark Were pairs that represented families; rapid evolution is subdivision within families. Rapid evolution does not equate to common descent, which is the theory that all animals came from a common ancestor. 160 years of paleontology does not support that premise.
Rapid evolution, results in species within families, but does not create new families, nor is there crossover between them; nothing will change from the cat family to the dog family, no reptile will cross over to the bird family or vice versa.
@@jockyoung4491 two things about your character, is evidence in your comment: (1) Would you have learned has been at the feet of authoritarians, before whom you have submitted in silence, hence the attitude you take here. You are not a harsh schoolmaster, your theatrics are in vain. (2) It is evident you fear ridicule above everything else and will do anything to avoid it. You appear to be rather thin skinned, to assume that is a universal reflex. As you are a collectivist, you are a herd animal: you do not determine your behavior, it is determined for you by the herd. As an alternative, I suggest you engage in personal rapid evolution and become an individualist.
@denvan3143 everything you said about families going onto the ark is contradicted by leviticus chapter 11. Kind clearly means species there
@denvan3143 common descent is supported by a huge range of observable evidence.
HeLa cells are a clear case of a new kind by anyones definition. Living single cell organisms that emerged from human cancer cells.
I am genuinely baffled as to why any religion still exists in this day and age. So much scientific factual evidence to debunk it, and only some ancient fairy tales to support it.
Fear of death. Wanting to be told how to behave and what to think. Lack of education or intelligence preventing understanding of science and just accepting "god did it" as the answer to everything.
Religion does not have to assert scientific "facts". It is only when fundamentalists insist on a literal interpretation of religious documents that they ope themselves to open refutation by science. If they kept to faith, and more value questions like purpose and morality, there need be no contradiction.
@@gregoryt8792 _First you should know 67% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Christian scientists._ *0%* of all Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work supporting Biblical creation. 😊
@@gregoryt8792 none of them won nobel prize with « god did it»
@@samburns3329 Got 'em
First of all what is an evolutionist It is just evolution and one of the cornerstones of science If you can disprove it why don't you go get your Nobel Prize
Your comment makes no sense in the English language.
@@statutesofthelord I am sorry it didn't make sense to you if you are a Christian I understand why Most other people will be able to understand
@@oldcountryboy Your hubris has kept your comment from having any impact on anybody, because your comment is not comprehensible in the English language.
Yes, I am an English teacher.
@@statutesofthelord Hey Mr. Teacher I went and had my 8-year-old nephew read what I wrote he was able to read it and understand it just fine So either you are lying that you couldn't understand it or you are not as smart as an 8-year-old
Because the people that hand out the Noble Prizes disagree with the conclusions based on the reason that it is not evolution.
I hope you see this I’m 13 and studying Genesis and it mentions the waters above. The expanse/firmament includes the sky and universe so I’m wondering what happened to the water. It can’t be clouds since clouds don’t exist above earth, it can have been the water that did the flood since it would just freeze traveling through space and gravity, and since heaven isn’t in our dimension it can’t be gods water reservoir from the psalms. If anyone sees this please answer me.
The real answer is there never was any water covering the entire globe. Noah's Flood is mythology, not an actual historical event.
@@samburns3329 I mean isn’t it convenient that that ancient mythology somehow explains erosion and Pangea for early earth and multiple people groups record a flood?
@@King_Leonidas723 The story doesn't explain anything in the real world. The actual physical evidence disproved a global Noah's Flood over two centuries ago. The oldest continually inhabited cities in the world are over 10,000 years old and lived right through the Flood without noticing. There are lots of geologic formations (look up angular unconformities) which take millions of years to form and are impossible in a one year Flood. Genetics shows a Noah's Ark never happened. We also have evidence of human cultures going back continuously for over 150,000 years. Best to just deal with the fact the Noah's Flood story is not real.
@@King_Leonidas723 All those groups that have recorded floods are before the supposed time frame of the Biblical flood. Pangea was 300 million yrs ago. Japan's recorded history runs right through the time frame of the Biblical flood, and never mentions it. There are large recorded floods that are supported by geological evidence, but they are only regional. We know what to look for, and there is no evidence of a global flood.
@@nathancook2852 Your assuming the world is that old? The carbon dating must used pre determines numbers in the computer to bad it on that’s why people who see rock form from lava and get it tested get it to be hundreds of thousands of years old. Yous also assume there was never any contaminations and that it ages the same over time
Again, what does atheism have to do with evolution? The fact that you equate the two just demonstrates that you have no clue.
One ad hominem. And also atheism has much to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is correlated with atheist beliefs.
@@Jraethyme
No it is not. Millions of Christians accept the science of evolution. And I'm sure there are atheists who know nothing about science. Faith and science have nothing to do with each other.
Evolution theory is an attempt to explain away the existence of God the creator. So yes, it is very correlated with atheist beliefs. That fact that you don't equate the two demonstrates that you have no clue.
@@MarkAtherton-bf4pq
No it is not. Evolution is science. Science can say nothing either way about the existence of God. Equating the two is a dishonest creationist talking point. Words have meanings.
@@MarkAtherton-bf4pq Most who believe in evolution are not atheists. Unless you label all who believe in evolution as atheists.
So is "kind" = "family" ?
It's an attempt to patch up the sloppy terminology that scientists use. They limit their classifications to domains, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses and species. Creationists replace the whole lot with "kind", because that's what illiterate Bronze Age goat herders would say.
👍
It’s whatever the creationist says it is under the circumstances.
No. Kind is not a scientific term. Only creationists use it.
No. Kind is not a scientific term. Only creationists use it.
I just always go back to Genesis. They produced after their own kind.. and God made the wild (wolves) and the tame (dogs). Plus god said "it was good" meaning no change needed to be perfected.
Genesis 30:38-39 Do you honestly believe that zebras got their stripes by mating in front of sticks?
Yes. I do. I believe it to be a Miracle. (small correction it was sheep not horses but whatever)
A non natural happening. Is a miracle. And dont even bother to try and use science to prove that miracles cant happen.
@@TacoBel He doesn't have to. You though simply can't prove they can happen.
@@taylorthetunafish5737 zebras? You have no idea what you’re talking about. 😄
@@denvan3143 I know what zebras are. I know what the bible states regarding how animals got stripes and spots.
Please enlighten me and show me what I'm ignorant of here.
Hey pals, even if evolution was disproved tomorrow.. your god is still just a character in a fairy tale. 😅
***it is just your opinion, matt***
@@adelinomorte7421 correct. Just like the rambling nonsense of AiG.
6:02
Breeds of dogs didn't descend from wolves. Wolves and breeds of dogs were separately created.
Not according to anyone in the real world
I just always go back to Genesis. They produced after their own kind.. and God made the wild (wolves) and the tame (dogs). Plus god said "it was good" meaning no change needed to be perfected.
@@The1707regina
And then millions of species fit on a boat. Right.
@@D.B-x2s
The only way that can happen is by evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 Do men evolve into women or is that different from evolution?
Smith: "...Abbott tries to explain to Costello the last names of the players on the baseball team..." Mr. Smith didn't listen to the routine. As is made clear in the beginning of the sketch, the names are their nicknames, not their last names. From a script of the skit:
"Lou Costello: Well you know I’ve never met the guys. So you’ll have to tell me their names, and then I’ll know who’s playing on the team.
Lou Costello: You mean funny names?
Bud Abbott: Strange names, pet names … like Dizzy Dean…
Lou Costello: His brother Daffy.".
Smith: "...the divvying up and expression of subsets of pre-existing genetic information that was front-loaded into the genomes of all the different kinds of creatures God made..." Anyone who can make sense of that statement, please enlilghten me.
Smith: "...are descended from the limited number, approximately 1400, of the various air-breathing kinds of creatures that went aboard and exited Noah's ark..." Apparently marine mammals and fish are left out of this equation. I doubt there were any blue whales on the ark, but regardless of that, fish, and the air-breathing mammals that prey on them, need different kinds of water. Most sea creatures need salt water. Fresh water fish need non-saline water. Any change in the salinity of the water would have killed off most of the fish, and those mammals that prey on them. In addition to that, as anyone who has lived through a flood knows, the billions of land animals that were left to drown would have been floating around and rotting in the flood waters, along with the humans who died with them. The water they float around in is not healthy.
Smith says the current creationist position is basically the position of LInnaeus. I'll just point out that Linnaeus died in 1778. almost 80 years before Origin of the Species was published. We cannot know whether he would have accepted it's conclusion or not. We do know this. LInnaeus had questions about the creation story that he tried to answer. Exactly what Darwin did. By the way, Darwin wasn't even born until thirty years after Linnaeus died. He would not have been surprised by whatever position Linnaeus took before he died. That postion would have been well known to Darwin, long before he wrote Origin of the Species.
One last thing. Dogs are a pretty poor example to use, because they didn't evolve naturally. Humans took a hand, breeding pairs with certain characteristics they wanted. That greatly accelerated the process of evolution. Nature doesn't work that way. In order for a characteristic to become "stuck" in a species, it has to have value for reproduction, and it has to spread through the species. That process takes more time than deliberate attempts to get the characteristics you want by enforcing breeding between the members of the species that have it.
You know, the earth's atmosphere and environment was vastly different before the flood, than it is now.
Apparently there's evidence of ferns and amphibians- In Antarctica of all places.
And the oxygen level being different explains why there was so much more gigantism (think giant marsupials, insects, (maybe even the dinosaurs were affected by this?), etc)
than there is now.
@@grapesofmath1539 Yes, the earth's environment was vastly different millions of years ago. Even a few thousand years ago. All of present day Canada, and some of northern USA, were covered in ice. That ice age lasted from roughly 115,000 YA to around 11,000 YA. In British Columbia Canada there is fossilized sea life in the Burgess Shale, a fossil bed of sea creatures high in the Rocky Mountains. Given the Burgess Shale is roughly 500 million years old, that would be before the Flood. However, I'm not sure how this affects what I said in my original comment. Perhaps you could explain?
"Dogs are a pretty poor example to use, because they didn't evolve naturally. " - There never was evolution. Dogs speciated from wolves through gene loss. Wolves have more diverse genome than any dog.
"Humans took a hand, breeding pairs with certain characteristics they wanted. That greatly accelerated the process of evolution." - Nonsense. Dogs have never evolved. When you breed pairs with certain characteristics you get more one-sided genomes. That's why so many dogs have hereditary diseases. Wolves do not have them.
Evolutionists should learn - and they eventually WILL learn - that there is no evolution on this planet, only intraspecific variation 😎
"Most sea creatures need salt water. Fresh water fish need non-saline water. " - All sea creatures were adapted with the water that was 4500 years ago. Current salinity has developed from it because of erosion.
@@jounisuninen Given how much salt is in the ocean today, and the speed at which salt is being added to the ocean, it must have taken millions of years for the oceans to become as saline as they are. Rounding up all the ocean salt would give us a sphere the size of the moon. Somehow I doubt that amount of salt was added over the last 4500 years without someone noticing. It's also true that the faster the oceans became saline, the faster must have been the evolution of sea creatures. I mean, not much happens to species over 4500 years. There's an ocean quahog that can live to 500 years of age. Not many generations in those 4500 years. So either evolution is proceeding at a very rapid rate, or that 4500 year estimate is wrong.
"Evolutionists" have NOTHING to do with the creation of life in any way. Evolution is the process of change in an organism over time, not how that organism came to be initially.
The video starts out by saying the terms used by the different sides aren't clearly defined for both sides to have a common starting point, then incorrectly calls people that study the origins of life evolutionists. It's as if using the incorrect terminology is intentional to help further the "Young Earth Creationist" views as being more logically sound. I believe that's what is called "gaslighting"; something those pushing this nonsensical belief continuously use in arguments. 🤔 🤨
"Evolutionists have NOTHING to do with the creation of life in any way. Evolution is the process of change in an organism over time, not how that organism came to be initially."
- It is true that the evolutionist theory has no ground under it. Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, for good reason. Evolutionists know it's impossible to prove that life could have triggered evolution. Evolution has no explainable connection to the first spark of life. Evolution is a fairy tale as long as this connection can't be found.
Atheistic evasion tactics: "Origins of evolution is not part of evolution." A pathetic escape hatch ...
Evolution can't happen without life, so in formal logic the origins of evolution MUST be part of evolution. Can we explain evolution without life? Of course not. The problem for evolutionists is that abiogenesis would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so there never could’ve been abiogenesis in the first place. No abiogenesis - no evolution because God is ruled out ...
The abstract of "evolution" is like a building sketched on a paper. In that evolutionary sketch the building has no footing i.e. no scientific explanation how the assumed abiogenetic emergence of life and the emerging evolution could get connected. Of course, being a mere imaginary drawing, this "evolutionary building" doesn’t need a basement ... In real life evolution would need a basement, otherwise (macro)evolution is just fantasy - as we know it is!
Evolutionists work on their imaginary evolutionary sketch, study it and add all kinds of "evidence" and details to their ”evolution building” to make it look credible. However there is still no footing under that building. Neither do evolutionists know how to draw it. This evolutionary building floating in the air is only on paper and it will forever stay on paper.
The evolutionary ”building on paper” can't actualize in real life, just like the theory of evolution can't actualize in real life. All empirical studies to prove "macro" evolution (new life forms emerging from existing life forms) in laboratories have failed. Only intraspecific adaptive variation has ever happened and this the evolutionists call "evolution". We can call it ”micro evolution” if we want, but it really has nothing to do with the hypothetical ”Universal Common Ancestor” i.e. with evolution.
👏👏👏 ..Your comment makes a lot of sense (unlike this video which is a jumbled mess of obfuscation).
Evolutionist stridently disclaim any connection to origin of life for a simple reason: there is no evidence of it and no theory how it could’ve happened and yet it is essential to evolution, as life is necessary for life to possibly have evolved from one form to another. Your disclaimer is desperation.
It is hypocrisy: on the one hand, you demand the source of life for creation, but on the other hand, you deny in responsibility for providing the source of life for evolution. It is a double standard that is unsupportable.
Why you have your own opinion concerning the young earth idea, creation is logical, evolution is not, in its aspects of cosmology, physics, and biology.
After 1927 evolutionist could no longer say that the universe was eternal, therefore there was no need of an eternal creator. Edwin Hubbles disclosure of the red shift, demonstrated the universe had a beginning. Evolutionist cannot explain creation without the creator; they can only say “it just happened“ a complete disassociation from cause and effect, a failure of logic, no more than an embrace of magic.
Frederick Hoyles, discovery of fine-tuning demonstrates the adjusting of the laws of physics by supreme being so that life is possible. The evolutionist explanation is “it just happened”: magic.
The source of biological instructions in DNA, the code and all living things is explained by evolutionist as “it just happened“: magic.
I don’t believe in magic, I believe in cause and effect. a conscious creator is a logical explanation for the universe, the laws of physics and the biological instructions in all living things.
I will leave the magic to you.
Evolutionists would love to have evidence for the creation of life, they don’t have it, even though they have been searching for it, have failed and so have sought to disown it. But with no explanation of how life could arrive spontaneously, there can be no evolution in which life forms evolve from other life forms. It is a double standard: on the one hand, evolutionist demand evidence of the source of life for creation, but any responsibility to provide evidence of the source of life for evolution. That isn’t science, that is dogma.
Thanks so much for bringing truth in such a peaceful environment & wisdom to carry it through. Love your videos...certainly beats these bad news videos any day! God bless you
AiG provides you deliberate misinformation and propaganda.
Michael Behe's book The Edge of Evolution is a great resource when it comes to the various taxonomy kinds and how well evolutionary theory explains and doesn't explain some of those levels of differentiation.
"how well evolutionary theory explains and doesn't explain " - There are so many different evolution theories that the evolutionist themselves don't know the "right" theory anymore 🤣
1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution. (Wikipedia)
2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago. (Wikipedia)
Point 1 is true as anyone can see but it's not evolution. It doesn't claim that new genera or new life forms appear from the existing species. Scientists have observed only intraspecific (within species) variation. This variation is called "evolutionary process" by the desperate Darwinist.
Point 2 has never been scientifically proven. It would need a continuous flow of totally new genetic information which is not found in the species' own genome. This kind of evolution is of course fiction. It's remarkable that nobody has got Nobel Price for proving evolution that could produce new taxonomic genera from some existing species.
"A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." (Wikipedia)
Question: How many times has evolution been repeatedly observed or experimentally measured, getting positive empirical evidence? Answer: Not once!
Evolution has been tested innumerable times with tens of thousands generations of test organisms. Still every empirical test has proved that evolution does not happen. No new life forms, no new body plans, no new species emerge from the existing species … Read: No evolution, only intraspecific variation aka "micro evolution" which really is not evolution at all.
No book by Michael Behe should ever be used as a resource fir anything. It will just encourage him
Michael Behe is one of the heads of the Discovery Institute. This creationist organization has made it its primary mission torpedoing the theory of evolution. By all means, including dishonest and even lies! And this, when Christians are committed to the truth.
All of biology and medical sciences are based on evolution occurring, and yet Calvin tries to claim evolution is a myth. That is either ignorance, or willful lying. Seeing as how Calvin is corrected in the comments of every video he makes, I'm going with lying.
That's pretty much the surest bet you'll find.
“No, all of biology and medical science is patently not based on evolution; evolutionary understanding is based on processes now known to be in existence, and that is the study of biology and medical science, not on any hypothesis of how life might have been in eons past. Phylogeny does not recapitulate ontology.
@@denvan3143 First of all, why did you start with quotation marks? Secondly, yes, they are base on process known to exist, which includes evolution. Thank you for reiterating my point.
@@nathancook2852 ignore the quotation mark, it was a misty typing.
There is no reiteration of your point because you have none; it is an exercise in circular reasoning. Perceiving the past in terms of processes known to be an existence is an interpretation of the past; you cannot then look at this interpretation of the past and claim projecting that onto the past has any bearing on medical science and biology. You evidence, a lack of understanding of Charles Darwin’s theory, his methods and his findings. Rather, you exhibit, the behavior of someone and scotched in religion, and, at that, a religion in which ens is rejected, and belief is cling to the zealously.
I have the advantage that I approached evolution as an agnostic, having no understanding of our belief in God, but rejecting evolution because it was threadbare of the necessary evidence. as an agnostic, I approached the subject of God and then the person of God - and found him to be valid. If you don’t understand what interaction is with God, that is understandable: you have no knowledge of him, therefore you couldn’t be expected to know what a relationship with God is like. But as you give no evidence that you actually understand what evolution is, I think we are several miles away from any sort of cogent discussion of either subject.
Evolution has never been observed...
The hierarchy is based on genetics not physical traits. Please get the basic facts right.
Absolutely not in Linnaean taxonomy
it's largely based on traits & not genetics... eg Invertebrates vs Vertebrates, Mammals, Reptiles, Cold vs warm-blooded, Chordates etc.
As far as genetic grouping, it's probably phylogenetics, cladistics & barcoding
@@easyminimal_6130 the assignments today are based on genetics. Obviously that wasn’t the case in the 1700s. It is now. The *names* often correlate with specific derived traits, but the groups themselves are based on molecular data.
@@CreationMyths
It can be based on either or both. Genetics is usually favored these days, but not exclusively.
@@jockyoung4491 in cases where we have molecular data, that’s what we use.
@@CreationMyths
It is generally favored, except in paleontology
Interesting that calvin refers to baraminology. In 2010 research used baraminology techniques to show that archaeopteryx is linked to both dinosaurs and birds.
Check the paper Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs
Your use of the word “linked” in this context is vague; regardless, there are no intermediate fossil species that connects to archeopteryx Nor to birds. What’s missing from the “link” you cite are all the links of the chain that would be necessary to a phylogeny between dinosaur and archeopteryx And from there to birds.
If it is a phylogenic study, where is the phylogeny? The display case of fossils would have to be miles long.
@annieoaktree6774 I asked a legitimate question, you evaded it. You offer nothing but prejudice, but, you are a hater and haters got a hate. 😄.
@annieoaktree6774 what on earth are you talking about? You presented me with nothing.
@annieoaktree6774 is this a joke? You did a quick search on the Internet, found the first thing they had the word “pogy in it”. Did you notice that the cat didn’t evolve from anything else? Period I doubt you read it yourself, otherwise you would’ve provided a summary of your understanding of the subject. Don’t bother me again again, kid, you’ve gotv.
Young earth creationist are in the same category as flat earthers. Both literally just stick their fingers in their ears and shout to avoid the actual science.
That's a misrepresentation of what creationism stands for
Yeah, no
Then please explain what all the quoted persons actually meant for every quote in the video.
@@TacoBel Everyone here knows Calvin quote mines and misrepresents evidence and doesn't give context. Stop trying to defend him.
"actual science"
LOL. OK.
Sorry, theists. Gods are not realities.
Correct: gods (plural) are not reality; God is reality.
The universe is not eternal; it had a beginning, therefore, because material could not invent itself. It was created by what is immaterial: God. Nature did not create itself, it was created by the supernatural: God.
The reality is that the laws of physics must be exactly as they are or life would be impossible in the universe; it led the discover of fine-tuning, Frederick Hoyle, to understand that the universe has a theistic origin. That is the reality of physics.
The biological instructions in DNA is code; without a coder there is no code: that is reality. And God is reality.
Do you think.that house cats and tigers are the same "kind"?
@@tobias4411 The same "kind" of what?
Bible says "kind" about animals. So are they the same kinds of two different kinds of animals?
@@tobias4411 The bible states all sorts of ridiculous things. So, the same "kind" of what?
This video is a lovely way to support the theory of evolution. Not sure if that was the aim with it though:)
Wow you really feel smart
Not really, but I'm smart enough to see through the antics of this video:)
When you say dogs only produce dogs, cats only produce cats etc, you do realise that evolution would absolutely agree with that right?
But what he's saying is that all of these different types couldn't come from one life form.
@colinpierre3441 what would be the criteria then for saying a hyena and a cheetah cannot be in the same kind, but a cheetah and a kitten can
@colinpierre3441 no he is stating it as if this is where evolution and creation differ, and it isn't
mattbrook, you do understand that Evolution states that there used to be a Universal Common Ancestor, don't you?
@@statutesofthelord yes of course I do. Why would that contradict what I have said?
This is ridiculous. Deny actual science, but believe in a non proven imaginary skyward. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
" Deny actual science, but believe in a non proven imaginary skyward. "
"Science means "knowledge."
So, history, maths, geograghy, biology, chemistry etc is "science."
That said, the Bible is proven by maths, history, geography, biology etc.
Evolution is not.
"imaginary" is evolution.
@@marcj3682 All the Bible can claim is that a few of the places there were named are real, and a few of the characters share names with people that history can corroborate existed. NONE of the works, deeds, or "miracles" in the bible can be corroborated.
I'm more upset that this video brought to light several problems unrelated to the actual argument being made than the argument itself.
Another load of AIG dishonesty.
Another expression of insecurity on your part; why don’t you deal with your issues instead of coming here to dump on AIG?
@@denvan3143 Calvin equates "kind" to family, when in Leviticus it clearly describes "kind" as what science would call a species. Dishonesty. As well as the title being dishonest. Have I pointed out enough dishonesty yet? Or does Calvin have to meet a certain threshold of lies before it can be dishonesty?
@waggyquack974, Can you disprove anything in this video by reverse engineering a Velocitaptor et al from a modern Rhode Island Red by simple Gene Editing?
@nathancook2852 No, it wasn't the narrator of this video who put "Kind" at the Family Level, but the inventor of the Modern Taxonomy...Carl Linneaus.
Linneaus first began his Taxonomy by researching all known texts and commentaries about the Bible’s "Kind".
For most body plans, Linneaus put Kind as the Family or Genus Level. Some creatures are harder to classify.
But to say "Species"= "Kind" is plain wrong because just in the Canius Family different dog breeds can easily interbreed. Same in the Equine and Bovine groups.
A Bison can interbreed with your Holstein Milk cow, a Zebra can interbreed with a donkey and a Horse.
@@nathancook2852 Clearly, the subject of this conversation is beyond your comprehension. I don’t argue with children.
"However when you dig a little deeper you will find that anyone who works for AIG is a liar wthout shame"
A few questions.
A. What makes you state that, do you disagree? Thats fine, I disagree with you but that does not give me any right to call you a “lier without shame”
B. How can you prive that everyone who works for them is knowingly lying, correct or incorrect.
@@TacoBel Because every video quote mines and twists facts. They give no context and never provide the full article or work they claim to cite. That is dishonest...
@@nathancook2852 I mean, they're probably assuming their viewers aren't lazy and don't need to be spoonfed, but I suppose they could improve a bit on that.
Still, it's important for us to do our own research, too. We can't just take everything a video says at face value. Heck, even I disagree with the video when it says that foxes are a kind of dog. I don't _strongly_ disagree, they're certainly quite similar to dogs and wolves, but I still think foxes are their own thing.
@@grapesofmath1539 It is intentional when they do it in every video. They absolutely believe their viewers are lazy and need to be spoon fed. In fact, they count on it. Which is why this comment section, and all their comment sections, are full of people with zero scientific literacy.
Organisms don't evolve out their "kinds" as you like to put it. We can both agree that anything descended from a dog can also be classified as a dog.
The difference between you and me is that I can acknowledge that no matter how different any dog's descendants are from their ancestors, they'll still be dogs and I'd be willing to look at how they changed and diversified. Much in the same way how I can acknowledge how humans and chimpanzees are closer related to each other than either is to any other apes, how they're closer to each other than tigers are to mountain lions, and how all of them are mammals.
You, on the other hand, would eyeball point A and point Z, ignore every point between them, and would only refer to those descendants as being a part of the same "created kind" based on whether or not they visually look similar enough to you and if you were told, at an early age, that they're dogs.
If to you evolution = atheism then you really have no clue. One have nothing to do with the other. Clickbite at best.
All atheists are evolutionists...that's the connection.
I know others have already said this, but none of the references that calvin puts up at the start relate to rapid evolution if you actually look them up. There's lies, damn lies, and then calvin
Ironically, if he is correct, then "damned lies" would be a perfect description.
Please ask me any and all questions regarding evolution.
There never was evolution - only speciation.
@jounisuninen This is not a question. It is a statement. It is also untrue. Speciation is part of evolution.
@@Moist._Robot And nowadays the popes also accept evolution (since around 1996).
@@Nils-gi5bv didn’t the popes authorize the Spanish inquisition? They probably didn’t like my ancestors, Lutheens and Irish protestants. The Popes didn’t like Galileo and here they are on the wrong side of science once again.
@@denvan3143 At that time, the Catholic Church was not on the side of science. At least it apparently does today, albeit again with some delay.
Incidentally, this is not a statement by the Catholic Church alone: "We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology." Worldwide statement of all Central Conferences of the United Methodist Church.
Similar statements you will find from Lutherans, Reformed an a lot of other Protestant churches.
Time to dump darwin's delusion and teach observable science based in Genesis 1.
Time to dump religious delusion and teach observable science based on evidence.
But wait, reasonable people already do exactly that.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 since darwin published his theory we have observed billions of ape births and billions of human births and zero transitions. We have a large enough sample size to know evolution has failed. Meanwhile the fact that creatures produce after their own kind 100% of the time every moment of every day is clear evidence that Genesis 1 is valid. Accept the evidence; accept Christ.
So, who was around to observe Genesis 1?
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Surely not the authors of Genesis 1
@@norbertjendruschj9121 Darwinian evolution is not observable in nature, in the laboratory or in the fossil record, therefore it is not science, but merely a desperate belief system.
you are a blessing AIG 🙏🙏🙏✝️ God bless you
If you consider telling lies for jesus a blessing, then sure? I guess the ends justify the means for creationists.
@@Bomtombadi1 as long as AIG stays close to the word of God, there is no lies and that's exactly what they do.
In God there is no deceit. He is incapable of evil and therefore cannot say anything evil. His word is truth and nothing can change that fact.
So a blessing is lying and pushing deliberately misrepresentative propaganda?
@@newcreationinchrist1423 I can also make up attributes and characteristics of a fictional character as well. Does that mean it’s true?
@@newcreationinchrist1423 "He is incapable of evil...". Do you not consider infanticide and slavery to be evil then?